379.773  H.M.  SCHROEDER 
Sch7Sa 

AN  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  COST 
OF  PUBLIC  EDUCATION  IN 
PEORIA  DURING  THE 
SCHOOL  YEAR  1915-1916 


O')/? 


X|  I  -  72 

ID 


Cost  of  Public 
Education 

1915-1916 

Peoria,  Illinois 


UNIVERSITY  0* 

ILU  vo lb  LIBRARY 
<vt  urbana-champaign 


•  1  ■  •  -  -  . 

. 

'  •  ‘  , 

■  f  J  •  .  •  :  •  V  -  l-r  ;  • 

-  ■  .  '  :  •  ■  ■  -  :  *  ■  r  ■ .  ■  i  /  ■  . 


x  H  * .  * 


>  7 ;  i. 

•:>.  :>■  i  ■  .  rtf  !  I  .  •>. 


' 

-  ..  •  .  i;  '  ;* 


■ 

. 


'  !*>>  ■;  ?  ;;  ■'■'■‘I  ’f 

.  .  ■  •  -'V  1  ' 

. 


'  •!•  i  V-" 


V  AV  ..  .. 


&  V'  •» 


•  i  •  .  .  /  "•  «•»  i  •  >  :  ' 

■ 

,  ■  >  a  -s  ■  .  •  -4 1  •• 

'  .  ,  ■  V  :  -  *  ..  ’.S 


.  I  ■  ■ 


Mr-1,  %\ 


■ 


\  ■  i  K;  * ’M 


. 

-  ■■  >  v-'  ■  •  •-  '  \  j’r'  i  >  #,  7 

. 

*  '  *  <■.  'P--  ft  « 

: 

.  ... 

-  ■  T  .  !/  j  . 

s  -'.■■■■■  -  ■ 

.  v  •<  ■  •  •  ‘  .  i  ’* 

r  t  L v  -  .  t  '  t  l  ... 

•  '■!:  > ' 

.  -  '  ‘  .  • 

.  -  ■  1  v  ®  /  *  •  ■ 

^  :i  I  ,  V;  ■  •  r  -  \  '  v:  /! 

. 

■  Ui  .<■  *'  i -  '  t*fi\ 

■ 

‘  ;  ;  '  :'/  '  iiV'f  f*  »  ■-'  ",  '•  '  . 


•  r' 


■ 


'■  I 

V  r  -  r  1 


« '  .  , 


ij  i 1 


■>  ^  -  * 


-■  if  •;  '  '  A  ,  v  •  ~ ;.- 

I  f  l ,  rij-  •f'Mrtrii  '  I 

•  •>:  M  -  .  ■  -  -.>•¥  ■  ■ 

'•  i  \  •  '  V  i  ■ 

' 

■ 


An  Analysis  of 

The  Cost  of  Public 
Education  in 
Peoria 

during  the  school  year  1915-1916 


A  Report  to 

The  Board  of  School  Inspectors  of  Peoria,  Illinois 


By 

H.  H.  SCHROEDER 
Associate  Professor  of  Education 
Illinois  State  Normal  University,  Normal,  Illinois 


Dup.  U.  of  C. 
G.  W. 


. 


t 


- 


N 


Board  of  School  Inspectors, 

Peoria,  Illinois. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — 

In  compliance  with  your  resolution  of  October  6,  1916,  I  here¬ 
with  submit  my  report  on  “the  relative  cost  of  public  education  in 
Peoria  as  compared  to  that  of  other  cities  of  approximately  the 
same  size.”  The  resolution  stipulated  that  the  report  should  show: 

1.  The  cost  per  pupil  in  the  elementary  schools,  in  the  high 
schools  and  kindergartens,  for  administration,  instruction,  operation 
of  plant,  maintenance,  and  other  important  expenditures  per  school; 

2.  The  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  in  the  elementary  schools 
and  in  the  high  schools ; 

3.  Suggestions  and  recommendations  justified  by  the  findings. 

A  study  of  the  report  will  show  that  these  various  factors  have 
received  consideration. 

In  submitting  my  report  I  wish  to  express  my  appreciation  for 
the  hearty  co-operation  extended  to  me  by  Supt.  A.  W.  Beasley, 
M-r.  A.  N.  Morton,  Secretary  of  the  Board,  Miss  Frances  Ulricson, 
the  assistant  secretary,  and  by  everybody  connected  with  the  public 
schools  from  whom  I  had  occasion  to  solicit  information. 

Respectfully  yours, 

H.  H.  Schroeder. 

Normal,  Ill.,  April  6,  1917. 


3 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

AT  urbana.champaign 


» 


Educational  Costs  in  Peoria,  Ill. 


PART  I. 

A  SURVEY  OF  ESSENTIAL  FACTS 

Expenditures  of  the  Peoria  Schools  Last  Year 

In  the  attempt  to  determine  the  actual  expenditures  for  differ¬ 
ent  purposes  in  the  administration  of  the  public  schools  of  Peoria 
and  of  other  cities  of  approximately  the  same  size  it  was  thought 
best  to  use  the  data  for  the  school  year  1915-1916.  To  do  this  it 
was  necessary  to  secure  the  co-operation  of  the  Bureau  of  Educa¬ 
tion  at  Washington.  The  data  for  all  cities  in  the  list  except  Peoria 
were  obtained  from  the  reports  made  to  the  Commissioner  of 
Education  by  the  superintendents  of  schools  of  the  respective  cities. 
Several  school  systems  had  not  reported,  and  hence  it  was  necessary 
in  such  cases  to  use  the  corresponding  data  for  the  most  recent 
school  year  for  which  a  report  had  been  rendered. 

In  the  case  of  Peoria  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  make  an  in¬ 
dependent  study  of  the  facts  instead  of  depending  on  the  report 
made  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  School  Inspectors.  For 
even  a  brief  examination  of  the  system  of  accounting  used  in  the 
offices  of  the  Board  revealed  the  fact  that  the  same  did  not,  in  all 
cases,  show  proper  distributions  of  significant  classes  of  expendi¬ 
tures.  It  was  impossible,  as  a  result,  to  obtain  the  necessary  data 
from  the  balance  sheets  or  even  the  face  of  the  ledger.  And  for 
this  reason  the  necessary  facts  could  not  be  secured  from  the 
reports  of  the  secretary,  either,  since  these  reports  showed  the 
same  distributions  that  were  found  in  the  final  outcropping  of  the 
system  of  books  used  in  the  offices  of  the  Board.  As  a  result  it  was 
necessary  in  the  case  of  a  considerable  number  of  accounts,  to  go 
back  to  the  first  entries  and  even  to  the  original  vouchers. 

Several  illustrations  may  not  be  amiss.  The  secretary’s  report 
showed  payments  to  the  amount  of  $20,375.77  for  supervisors’ 
salaries.  This  amount,  properly  distributed,  divides  as  follows: 


Supervisors’  salaries . $13,067.89 

Special  Teachers,  Manual  Training  High  School .  1,502.98 

Special  Teachers,  Peoria  High  School,,, .  1,338.40 


4 


Special  Teachers,  Irving-  School .  95.00 

Mr.  Graf’s  salary,  to  be  charged  in  equal  parts  to  fol¬ 
lowing  schools :  Blaine,  Garfield,  Harrison,  Lincoln, 

Loucks,  McKinley .  960.00 

Mr.  Harms’s  salary,  to  be  charged  in  equal  parts  to  fol¬ 
lowing  schools :  Columbia,  Irving,  Longfellow, 
Washington,  White .  750.00 

Miss  Lord’s  salary,  to  be  charged  in  equal  parts  to  fol¬ 
lowing  schools:  Blaine,  Harrison,  Tyng,  Webster....  950.00 

Miss  Carson’s  salary,  to  be  charged  in  equal  parts  to  fol¬ 
lowing  schools:  Columbia,  Lee,  Loucks,  Webster, 

Whittier  .  577.50 

Miss  Oates’s  salary,  to  be  charged  in  unequal  parts  to  fol¬ 
lowing  schools:  Lincoln,  Loucks,  Washington,  Whit¬ 
tier  .  125.00 

Substitute’s  salary,  Lincoln,  $6.00;  McKinley,  $3.00 .  9.00 

Miss  Youngreen,  promotion  of  health .  1,000.00 


$20,375.77 

Of  the  above  total,  charged  to  supervision,  only  $13,067.89 
ought  to  be  so  charged. 

Under  the  head  of  Sundry  Office  Expense  the  secretary’s  report 
shows  a  charge  of  $951.72.  Of  this  amount  only  $198.62  ought  to 
have  been  so  charged.  The  rest  of  the  total  divides  up  as  follows : 
Peoria  High,  $21.05;  Manual  Training  High,  $23.70;  Whittier,  $.96; 
Irving,  $21.00;  Evening  School  supplies,  $8.00;  instructional  sup¬ 
plies,  $473.36;  repairs,  $89.87;  janitors’  supplies,  $106.91;  outlay, 
$8.25.  While  it  was  possible  to  make  this  redistribution,  it  was 
not  possible  to  determine  to  what  schools  some  of  these  items 
ought  to  have  been  charged,  for  neither  the  vouchers  nor  any  other 
records  furnished  the  necessary  information  ;  nor  was  the  memory 
of  any  employee  of  the  Board  able  to  supply  such  knowledge. 

In  determining  the  cost  per  pupil  the  average  daily  attendance 
was  taken  as  a  basis.  This  is  not  an  ideal  basis,  for  the  schools 
have  to  be  equipped  to  accommodate  a  great  many  pupils  that  do 
not  attend  regularly.  On  the  other  hand  it  would  not  do  to  take 
the  total  enrollment  as  the  basis  for  ascertaining  costs  per  pupil. 
For  the  total  enrollment  would  include  a  considerable  number  of 
cases  of  children  that  attended  for  only  a  short  time  before  leaving 
the  city.  A  more  nearly  just  basis  would  be  that  of  the  average  num¬ 
ber  of  pupils  belonging.  But,  since  it  was  the  desire  of  the  Board  of 
School  Inspectors  to  have  a  study  made  of  educational  costs  in 
Peoria  as  compared  to  those  of  other  cities,  it  was  necessary  to 
choose  either  the  total  enrollment  or  the  average  daily  attendance 
as  the  basis;  for  the  data  as  to  the  average  number  belonging  are 


5 


not  published  in  the  Reports  of  the  Commissioner  of  Education. 
And  as  between  the  total  enrollment  and  the  average  daily  at¬ 
tendance  as  criteria  for  measuring  the  actual  cost  of  education,  the 
latter  is  decidedly  preferable.  It  is  obtained  by  dividing  the  total 
days’  attendance  by  the  number  of  days  on  which  the  schools 
were  actually  in  session.  In  the  case  of  the  Kindergarten  at  the 
Lee  School  the  low  overage  daily  attendance  (8)  needs  explanation. 
This  kindergarten  was  started  in  the  spring  of  the  year,  being  in 
session  for  only  54  days.  The  aggregate  attendance  was  1531, 
making  the  average  daily  attendance  for  the  time  during  which 
it  was  in  session  28.4.  But  to  put  it  on  the  same  basis  with  the 
rest,  so  as  to  be  able  to  determine  per  pupil  costs,  the  aggregate 
daily  attendance  is  divided  by  190,  giving  8.1  as  the  average  daily 
attendance  on  the  year’s  basis. 

The  cost  of  administration,  according  to  the  secretary’s  report 
amounted  to  $42,185.16.  A  careful  analysis  reduced  this  amount  to 
$20,543.91,  and  there  is  valid  reason  for  believing  that  part  of 
this  amount  really  belongs  to  other  classes  of  expenditures.  The 
above  amount  includes  the  salaries  of  the  superintendent  of  schools, 
the  secretary  of  the  Board  and  the  various  office  employees  of  the 
Board,  of  the  superintendent  of  repairs,  of  attendance  officers,  and 
of  office  janitor.  It  also  includes  amounts  paid  for  office  rent,  legal 
services,  expenses  incurred  by  school  elections  and  school  census, 
auditing  of  accounts,  and  sundry  other  overhead  charges.  This 
amount  was  pro-rated  to  all  schools  on  the  basis  of  $2.299777  per 
pupil,  or  practically  $2.30,  as  indicated  in  Table  I. 

As  regards  the  cost  of  supervision,  reference  was  made  above 
to  the  fact  that  of  $20,375.77  charged  to  supervision,  in  the  secre¬ 
tary’s  report,  only  $13,067.89  ought  to  have  been  so  charged.  The 
salaries  of  teachers  supervising  work  in  the  elementary  schools  and 
high  schools  amounted  to  $7,979.75.  The  salaries  of  teachers  super¬ 
vising  work  exclusively  in  the  elementary  schools  amounted  to 
$5,088.14.  The  former  amount  is  pro-rated  as  follows:  13.7661% 
to  High  Schools,  and  86.2339%  to  elementary  schools.  Hence 
$1,098.50  is  pro-rated  to  the  two  high  schools  and  $11,969.39  to  the 
elementary  schools.  The  former  amount  is  divided  as  follows: 
48.8189%  to  the  Peoria  High  School  and  51.1811%  to  the  Manual 
Training  High  School.  The  cost  per  pupil  in  the  elementary 
schools,  exclusive  of  Detention  Home  School  was  $1.671703.  In 
the  case  of  kindergartens,  only  the  salary  of  the  kindergarten  super¬ 
visor  is  pro-rated.  The  cost  was  $2.13464696  per  pupil. 

In  the  case  of  the  two  high  schools  the  charges  to  principals’ 
salaries  include  salaries  of  clerks,  as  follows:  Peoria  High,  $400; 
Manual  Training  High,  $550.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  salaries  of 
elementary  school  principals  are  charged  only  to  the  pupils  above 


6 


the  kindergarten.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  most  of  the  kindergartens 
of  Peoria  are  housed  in  the  elementary  school  buildings,  there 
might  be  good  reason  for  charging  principals’  salaries  to  kinder¬ 
garten  pupils,  also.  However,  in  Peoria  as  in  many  other  school 
systems  the  kindergarten  is  practically  independent  of  the  super¬ 
vision  of  the  elementary  school  principal, 

,  i 

The  amounts  charged  to  each  school  under  the  head  of  teachers’ 
salaries  include  the  amounts  so  charged  on  the  pay-roll,  plus  a 
few  minor  amounts  paid  in  cash  at  the  end  of  the  school  year  after 
checks  for  the  last  month’s  salaries  had  been  issued,  and  lastly, 
redistributions  from  the  supervisors’  pay-roll  and  from  the  pay¬ 
rolls  of  other  schools.  These  redistributions  were  made  only  in 
the  case  of  teachers  of  special  subjects.  In  the  case  of  all  other 
teachers  the  charges  were  properly  made  in  the  records  at  the  office. 
Some  teachers  erroneously  carried  on  the  supervisors’  pay-roll  were 
teachers  of  special  subjects  dividing  their  time  between  different 
schools.  In  some  cases  there  were  teachers  carried  on  the  pay-roll 
of  certain  schools,  while  part  of  their  services  were  rendered  in 
other  schools.  In  all  such  cases  redistributions  were  made.  This 
was  done  on  the  basis  of  information  kindly  supplied  by  Supt. 
A.  W.  Beasley,  as  to  the  fractional  amount  of  time  spent  in  dif¬ 
ferent  schools.  In  the  case  of  the  Irving  School,  for  instance,  the 
pay-roll  showed  a  charge  of  $9,483.45  for  teachers’  salaries.  There 
was  an  additional  charge  of  $7.50  from  the  petty  cash  account, 
making  a  total  charge  of  $9,490.15.  From  this  total  there  had  to 
be  deducted  $466.80  from  the  salaries  of  two  teachers,  leaving  the 
total  charged  for  teachers’  salaries  $9,024,15.  In  this  connection 
the  fact  might  be  mentioned  that  the  Irving  School  houses  the 
City  Training  School.  Part  of  the  time  of  the  teachers  of  this  school 
is  devoted  to  the  training  of  the  young  women  preparing  to  teach  in 
the  schools  of  the  city.  But  at  present  there  is  no  recognition 
of  this  fact  taken  in  the  office  records. 

In  the  case  of  stationery,  school  supplies,  and  other  instruction¬ 
al  expense  it  was  impossible  to  procure  reliable  information  as  to 
the  extent  to  which  charges  ought  to  be  made  against  the  different 
schools.  The  records  show  that  such  supplies  were  purchased  to 
the  amount  of  $9,629.85.  Of  this  amount  $14.40  was  charged  to 
evening  schools,  leaving  $9,615.45  to  be  charged  against  the  day 
schools.  Of  this  amount  only  $4,301.99  was  charged  to  individual 
schools,  namely  $2,508.62  on  the  monthly  trial  balances,  and  $1,- 
793.37  on  the  requisition  book.  This  left  a  balance  of  $5,313.46  for 
supplies  purchased  during  the  year,  but  not  charged  to  the  different 
schools.  In  other  words,  not  quite  45  per  cent  of  the  whole  was 
charged  to  the  different  schools.  As  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  the  other  55  per  cent  did  hot  reach  the  different  schools, 


7 


there  was  only  one,  thing  left  to  do,  namely  to  assume 
that  each  school  received  its  proportionate  share  of  this  bal¬ 
ance.  Hence  the  balance  was  pro-rated.  v  This  was  the  best 
that  could  be  done  under  the  circumstances.  Yet  it  is  noth¬ 
ing  more  than  a  necessary  makeshift.  There  is  every  rea¬ 
son  to  believe  that  as  a  result  charges  against  some  schools  are 
overweighted  while  they  are  under-weighed  in  the  case  of  some 
others.  The  specific  charges  against  the  two  high  schools  were 
as  follows:  Peoria  High,  $941.61;  Manual  Training  High  School, 
$1,196.42.  In  addition  there  was  pro-rated  to  the  high  schools 
$609.93.  The  records  showed  that  of  the  uncharged  total  of 
$5,313.46,  there  were  supplies  to  the  amount  of  $871.58  used  in 
elementary  schools  only.  Hence,  only  the  difference  between  these 
two  amounts,  namely  $4,441.88  could  properly  be  pro-rated  to  high 
schools  and  elementary  schools  alike.  To  show  how  unsatisfactory 
the  pro-rating  of  part  of  the  instructional  supplies  is,  a  few  illustra¬ 
tions  are  added.  Two  of  the  smallest  schools  actually  have  the 
greatest  charges  against  them  on  the  records.  The  Loucks  School, 
the  smallest  of  all,  is  charged,  with  $112.37,  next  to  the  largest 
amount  charged  to  any  of  the  elementary  schools;  while  the  Lee 
School  has  a  charge  of  $253.59,  the  largest  amount  charged  to  any  of 
the  elementary  schools.  There  is  no  particular  ascertainable  reason 
for  believing  that  these  two  small  schools  actually  used  so  much 
more  of  instructional  material  than  did  some  of  the  larger  schools. 
In  the  case  of  the  kindergartens  no  supplies  were  charged  out 
against  individual  schools.  The  books  record  charges  for  supplies 
for  the  kindergarten  department  as  a  whole,  instead.  Hence,  $772.60 
which  was  charged  on  the  trial  balance,  and  $26.42  on  the  requisi¬ 
tion  book,  or  a  total  of  $799.02,  was  pro-rated  to  the  different  kinder¬ 
gartens  on  the  basis  of  $1.3120197  per  pupil. 

Under  the  head  of  miscellaneous  operating  expenses,  totaling 
$8,704.27,  are  included  gas  and  electricity  to  the  amount  of 
$3,150.47 ;  hauling  ashes  $475.90 ;  rent  of  armory  for  use  as  a  gymna¬ 
sium  by  students  of  the  Peoria  High  School,  $1,050;  rent  for  the 
Neighborhood  House  kindergarten,  $110;  janitors’  supplies  to  the 
amount  of  $2,467.09,  and  sundry  other  operating  expenses,  such  as 
inspection  of  scales  and  boilers,  freight  and  express,  hauling  of 
supplies.  Janitors’  supplies  were  charged  to  individual  schools  to 
the  amount  of  only  $426.80;  the  rest  was  pro-rated,  as  were  all  of 
the  charges  for  freight,  express,  hauling  of  supplies,  and  similar 
items.  Express,  freight,  and  cartage  charges  on  supplies  ought  to 
be  added  to  the  cost  of  supplies  wherever  possible.  As  this  was 
not  done  there  was  no  recourse  but  to  pro-rate  the  respective 
amounts. 

The  maintenance  account  includes  repairs  of  buildings  and 
equipment,  as  well  as  replacement  of  equipment,  upkeep  of  grounds, 
supplies  for  repairs  and  insurance.  The  total  of  $21,211.32  includes 


8 


a  group  of  miscellaneous  items  such  as  supplies  for  repairs  that 
had  to  be  pro-rated;  this  latter  item  amounted  to  $1,548.07.  The 
actual  cost  of  insurance  was  $3,216.21,  although  the  amount  paid 
out  during  the  year  for  insurance  was  only  $2,953.36.  The  balance, 
amounting  to  $16,447.04,  was  for  repairs  on  buildings,  upkeep  of 
grounds,  and  repairs  on  equipment  as  well  as  replacement  of  equip¬ 
ment.  This  amount  does  not  agree  with  the  total  for  repairs  found 
in  the  secretary’s  report  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  latter  report 
was  drawn  directly  from  the  distributions  found  in  the  records  of 
the  office.  In  some  instances  amounts  were  recorded  as  outlay  that 
ought  to  have  been  entered  as  replacements.  For  instance,  vouchers 
10095  and  10110  showed  that  new  typewriters  had  been  secured 
for  the  Manual  Training  High  School  to  displace  old  ones  by 
payment  of  additional  charges  of  $165.00  and  $30.00  respectively. 
Voucher  No.  10204  records  a  payment  of  $125.00  for  a  similar 
purpose  for  the  Peoria  High  School.  These  amounts  were  re¬ 
corded  as  payments  for  furnishings  bought,  and  were  included, 
therefore,  under  the  head  of  outlay,  whereas  they  ought  to  have 
been  charged  under  the  head  of  maintenance.  On  the  other  hand, 
some  charges  were  entered  as  repairs  instead  of  as  outlay.  Foi 
instance,  Vouchers  No.  10032  and  10036  contain  several  charges 
amounting  to  $55.25  for  new  furniture  for  the  old  Glen  Oak  School 
that  were  charged  in  as  repairs  instead  of  as  outlay.  It  is  very 
evident  that  the  total  cost  per  pupil  in  a  given  school  is  increased 
materially  by  an  unusually  heavy  repair  bill,  as  for  instance  in  the 
case  of  the  Columbia  School.  Hence,  in  comparing  the  total  costs 
per  pupil  in  different  schools,  allowance  must  be  made  for  a  heavy 
maintenance  expenditure  not  characteristic  of  a  given  school. 

The  miscellaneous  expenditures  include  payments  for  pension 
fund,  $3,007.85;  promotion  of  health,  $1,087.95,  which  last  amount 
includes  a  salary  of  $1,000;  books  for  indigents,  $816.61;  coal, 
repairs  and  hauling  ashes  for  the  Teachers’  Club  $297.99  ;  librarian 
Peoria  High  School,  $350.00;  medical  attendance  under  the  em¬ 
ployer's  liability  law,  $261.50;  exhibits,  field  day,  civic  parade,  com¬ 
mencement  exercises.  All  items  that  could  properly  be  charged 
to  individual  schools  were  so  charged.  The  balance  was  pro-rated. 
The  salary  of  the  librarian  at  the  Peoria  High  School  was  charged 
to  this  school,  making  the  cost  per  pupil  in  that  school  $1.30.  Iff 
the  case  of  the  Manual  Training  High  School  and  the  elementary 
schools  it  was  $.6715728  per  pupil.  For  kindergarten  pupils  the 
cost  was  $.8944299  per  pupil. 


The  total  expenditures  were  $456,377.88,  while  the  secretary’s 
books  showed  them  to  be  $467,337.55.  This  difference  is  due 
mainly  to  the  fact  that  many  items  charged  in  as  running  expenses 
really  were  payments  for  outlay.  For  instance,  a  charge  of 


9 


$1,016.17  for  coal  ought  to  have  been  included  as  part  of  the  cost 
of  the  new  Peoria  High  School  building.  Insurance  to  the  amount 
of  $777.30  on  this  building  while  in  the  process  of  construction 
ought  likewise  to  have  been  charged  to  this  building,  under  the 
head  of  outlay. 

In  attempting  to  determine  how  much  it  costs  to  give  a  pupil 
one  year  of  schooling  it  is  necessary  to  consider  something  .more 
than  the  current  expenses  for  operation  and  maintenance.  For 
the  city  has  a  considerable  amount  of  wealth  tied  up  in  the  public 
school  plant.  Interest  on  this  investment  and  a  reasonable  charge 
for  depreciation  ought  to  be  added  to  the  current  expenses.  In  the 
charges  made,  under  this  head  in  Tables  I  and  II  to  the  different 
schools  a  charge  of  5  per  cent  for  interest  was  made  on  the  total 
investment  in  the  site,  the  building,  and  the  equipment.  In  estimat¬ 
ing  depreciation  it  was  assumed  that  the  life  of  a  fire-proof  building 
is  two-thirds  of  a  century ;  that  of  the  other  buildings  with  the 
exception  of  portable  buildings,  is  fifty  years,  while  that  of  portable 
buildings  is  ten  years.  Hence  an  additional  charge  was  made  for 
depreciation  as  follows  :  2  per  cent  in  the  case  of  ordinary  build¬ 

ings,  1^2  per  cent  for  fire-proof  buildings,  and  10  per  cent  for 
portable  buildings.  It  was  much  more  difficult  to  estimate  depre¬ 
ciation  on  furniture  and  equipment,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the 
records  in  the  office  do  not  distinguish  between  these  two  items, 
simply  showing  the  amount  invested  in  “furnishings.”  In  the  case 
of  several  schools  a  painstaking  attempt  was  made  to  determine 
the  proportion  of  the  value  of  furniture  to  that  of  equipment.  In 
the  elementary  sch.ools  probably  about  four-fifths  of  the  amount 
invested  in  “furnishings"  is  invested  in  furniture,  and  one-fifth  in 
equipment ;  in  the  high  schools,  three-fifths  in  furniture  and  two- 
fifths  in  equipment.  Furniture  will  last,  on  the  average,  about 
twenty  years,  equipment,  ten  years.  Hence,  in  the  case  of  elemen¬ 
tary  schools  a  charge  was  made  of  6  per  cent  for  depreciation  on 
the  amount  invested  in  furnishings,  and  in  the  case  of  the  high 
schools,  7  per  cent.  The  sum  of  the  amounts  thus  obtained  by 
adding  5  per  cent  on  the  investment  to  the  various  amounts  in¬ 
dicated  for  depreciation  gave  the  total  annual  charge  to  be  added 
to  the  current  expenses.  Adding  the  per  pupil  cost  for  interest 
and  depreciation  to  the  total  cost  for  running  expenses,  shows  us 
that  last  year  the  average  cost  per  pupil  in  the  kindergartens  was 
$62.61,  in  the  elementary  schools,  $57.83,  and  in  the  high  schools 

$110.81.  ;■ 

\  '  yo-K?  j*  - 

The  basis  used  in. estimating  the  cost  due  to  interest  on  invest¬ 
ment  and  to  depreciation  is  merely  suggestive ;  it  is  not  submitted 
with  any  claim  to  finality.  It  may  well  be  urged  that  even  fire 
proof  buildings  ought  to  be  estimated  to  last  at  least  half  a  century 
and  ordinary  buildings  a  third  of  a  century.  In  the  older  com- 


10 


I 

r 

I 

c 

( 


Table  II. 


T  otal  cost  and  per  pupil  cost  of  classified  expenditures,  exclusive  of  outlay,  for  the  public  day  high  schools  and  elementary  schools  of  Peoria,  1915-1916 


KINDERGARTENS 

Number 
of  pupils 
in  aver¬ 
age  daily 
attend¬ 
ance 

Adminisira- 
tion,  pro¬ 
rated.  $2.30 
per  pupil 

Supervisors’ 
salaries,  pro¬ 
rated  ; 
kindergar¬ 
tens  $2.13 
per  pupil 

Salaries  of  principals 

Amt.  Per  Pupil 

Salaries  of  teachers 

Amt.  Per  Pupil 

Stationery,  supplies, 
and  other  instruc¬ 
tion  expense; 
kindergartens,  pro¬ 
rated,  $1.31  per 
pupil 

Amt.  Per  Pupil 

Salaries  of  janitors 

Amt.  Per  Pupil 

Fuel 

Amt.  Per  Pupil 

Gas  and  electricity, 
janitors’  supplies, 
and  other  operating 
expense 

Amt.  Per  Pupil 

Maintenance,  re¬ 
pairs,  replacement 
of  equipment,  in¬ 
surance,  etc. 

Amt.  Per  Pupil 

Promotion 
of  health, 
libraries, 
and  other 
miscellane¬ 
ous  ex¬ 
pense,  pro¬ 
rated;  kin¬ 
dergartens, 
$0.39  per 
pupil 

Total  expenses, 
exclusive  of  outlay 

Amt.  Per  Pupil 

Interest  on  investment 
and  depreciation  of 
plant  and  equipment 

Amt.  Per  Pupil 

Blaine  Kindergarten  . 

32 

$  73.59 

$  68.31 

$  1  384  00 

841  25 

8  41  99 

$  91  69 

$2  87 

$  34  08 

$1.07 

$  21.40 

$  .67 

$  60.21 

$1.88 

$  28.62 

$  1803.89 

$56.37 

$  353.06 

$11.03 

Columbia  . 

27 

62.09 

57.64 

1212  67 

45  65 

15  49 

90  15 

3  34 

38  04 

’  1.41 

21.64 

.80 

327.68 

12.14 

24.15 

1889.48 

69.98 

339.27 

’  12  57 

Douglas  . 

37 

85.10 

78  98 

1 126  00 

TJ.Uu 

15  84 

48  54 

. 

97  10 

2  62 

51  68 

1.40 

41.47 

1.12 

30.68 

.83 

33.10 

1792.65 

48.45 

708.76 

19  16 

Franklin . 

27 

62.09 

57.64 

1295  75 

O  J.u  i 

47  99 

15  41 

73  64 

2  73 

31  16 

1.15 

17.74 

.66 

77.89 

2.88 

24.15 

1675.49 

62.05 

281  68 

10  43 

Garfield  . 

47 

108.09 

100  33 

1187  00 

?5  26 

61  67 

126  71 

2  70 

62  77 

1.34 

28.94 

.62 

120.08 

2.55 

42.03 

1837.62 

39.09 

31447 

6  69 

Glen  Oak . 

35 

80.49 

74.71 

1294  40 

36  98 

45  92 

106.09 

3.03 

30.15 

.86 

17.87 

.51 

276.76 

7.91 

31.31 

1957.70 

55.93 

296.9 2 

8.48 

Greeley  . 

16 

36.80 

34  15 

1404  14 

87  76 

20  99 

51  01 

3  19 

23  67 

1.48 

10.27 

.64 

21.96 

1.37 

14.30 

1617.29 

101.08 

364  82 

22  80 

Harrison  . 

37 

85.09 

78.98 

1215  27 

3 9  87 

48  54 

84  81 

2  29 

39.07 

1.06 

23.26 

.63 

52.95 

1.43 

33.10 

1661.07 

44.89 

394  27 

10  66 

Irving . 

1  34 

|  78.19 

72  58 

1044  25 

30  71 

44  61 

102  91 

3  03 

38.13 

1.12 

26.13 

.77 

29.46 

.86 

30.41 

1466.67 

43.14 

704  81 

20  85 

Lee  . 

8 

18.40 

17.08 

368  50 

46  06 

10  50 

24  24 

3.03 

7.99 

1.00 

3.99 

.50 

42.40 

5.30 

7.15 

500.25 

62.53 

52  53 

6  57 

Lincoln  . 

35 

80.49 

74.71 

. 

956  12 

97 12 

45  92 

83  01 

2  37 

42.01 

1.20 

21.92 

.63 

127.36 

3.64 

31.31 

1462.85 

41.80 

350  59 

10  0? 

Loucks  . 

26 

59.79 

5  5'.  50 

822  95 

31  65 

34  11 

106  21 

4.09 

53.09 

2.04 

46.99 

1.81 

111.30 

4.28 

23.25 

1313.19 

50.51 

459  37 

17  67 

McKinley . 

45 

103.49 

96  06 

1304  26 

|  28  98 

59  04  | 

141  23 

3.14 

50.10 

1.11 

21.95 

.49 

34.82 

.77 

40.25 

1851.20 

41  14 

549  75 

12  22 

Sumner . 

29 

66.69 

61.90 

. 

1175  57 

40  54 

38  05 

82.63 

2.85 

22.89 

.79 

14.84 

.51 

65.52 

2.26 

25.94 

1554.03 

53.59 

191  50 

6  60 

Lucie  B  Tyng . 

44 

101.19 

93.92 

. 

1074  00 

24  41 

57  73 

115.62 

2.63 

40.21 

.91 

58.21 

1.32 

81.32 

1.85 

39.36 

1661.56 

37.76 

627  57 

14  26 

Washington  . 

27 

62.09 

57.64 

1144  00 

42  37 

35  42 

84.69 

3.14 

29.06 

1.08 

26.09 

.97 

14.30 

.53 

24.15 

1477  44 

54.72 

594  67 

22  0? 

White  . 

43 

98.89 

91.79 

1242  75 

28  90 

56  42 

99.82 

2.32 

44.26 

1.03 

28.09 

.65 

78.95 

1.84 

38.46 

1779.43 

41.38 

485  18 

11  28 

Whittier  . 

36 

82.79 

76.85 

1174  82 

32  63 

47  23 

103.74 

2.88 

40.45 

1.12  ! 

39.96 

1.11 

65.83 

1.83 

32.20 

1663.87 

46  22 

615.19 

.  1 

17.09 

Neighborhood  House  . 

24 

55.19 

51.23 

. 

1141.50 

47.56 

31.49 

54.96 

2.29  j 

110.00 

4.58 

11.90 

.50 

21.47 

1477.74 

61.57 

Totals  and  averages  for  kindergartens 

609 

1,400.54 

1,300.00 

21,787  95 

35.78 

799.02 

1,665.30 

2.73 

733.77 

1.21 

580.76 

.95 

1.631.37 

2.68 

544.71 

30,443.42 

49  99 

7  684  41  | 

12  62 

Totals  for  elementary  schools . 

|  7181 

|  16,514.72 

|  11,969.39 

31,713.25 

4.42 

204,175.34 

28.43 

6068.48 

. 

.85 

20,105.95 

2.77 

8,053.98 

1.12 

5,546.77 

.77 

16,897.88 

2.35 

4822.56 

325,868.31 

45.38 

89,403.75 

12.45 

Elementary,  including  kindergarten. 

7790 

17,915.26 

13,269.39 

31,713.25 

4.07 

225,963.29 

29.01 

6867.50 

.88 

21,771.25 

2.79 

8,787.75 

1.13  | 

6,127.53 

.79  | 

18,529.25 

2.38 

5367.27 

356,311.73 

45.74 

97,088.16  | 

12.48 

High  schools  . 

1143 

2  628.65 

1,098.50 

6,350.00 

5.56 

73,535.99 

64.31 

2747.95 

2.40 

5,654.00 

4.91 

1,674.63 

1.45  | 

2,576.74 

2.28  i 

2,682.0 7 

2.91 

1117.61 

100.066.15 

87.55 

26,588.44  j 

22.99 

Totals  and  averages  for  all  schools..- 

8933 

$20,543.91 

$14,367.89 

$38,063.25 

$4.26 

$299,499.28 

$33.53 

$9615.45 

$1.08 

$27,425.25 

$3.07 

$10,462.38 

$1.17  | 

$8,704.27 

$  .97  | 

$21,211.32 

$2.38 

$6484.88 

$456,377.88 

$51.09  j 

$123,676.60  | 

$13.89 

Table  I. 

Total  cost  and  per  pupil  cost  of  classified  expenditures,  exclusive  of  outlay,  for  the  public  day  high  schools  and  elementary  schools  of  Peoria,  1915-1916. 


SCHOOL 


Number  of 
pupils  in 
average 
daily 

attendance 


Adminis¬ 

tration 

prorated 

$2.30 

per  pupil 


Supervisors' 

salaries, 

prorated 

high  schools 
$0.96  _ 
per  pupil 

elementary 
schools  $1.67 
per  pupil 


Salaries  of  principals 
(and  their  clerks  in 
case  of  high  schools) 


Amount 


Per 

Pupil 


Salaries  of  teachers 


Amount 


Per 

Pupil 


Stationery,  supplies 
and  other  instruc¬ 
tion  expense 


Amount 


Per 

Pupil 


Salaries  of 
janitors 


Fuel 


Amount 


Per 

Pupil 


Amount 


Per 

Pupil 


Gas  and  electricity, 
janitors’  supplies 
and  other  operat¬ 
ing  expenses 


Amount 


Peoria  High  School . 

Manual  Training  High  School. 


558 

585 


$  1283.28 
1345.37 


536.28  | 
562.22  i 


3100.00 

3250.00 


$5.56 

5.56 


35,139.15 

38,396.84 


$62.97 

65.64 


$1239.37 

1508.58 


$2.22 

2.58 


1800.00 

3854.00 


$3.23 

6.59 


;  491.78  | 
1182.85  I 


2.02 


$1948.11 

628.63 


Totals  and  averages  for  high  schools. 


1143  |  $  2628.65  1  $  1098.50  |  $  6350.00  |  $5.56  |  $ 


ELEMENTARY  SCHOOLS 

Blaine  . 

Columbia  . 

Douglas  . 

Franklin  . 

Garfield  . 

Glen  Oak  . 

Greeley  . 

Harrison  . 

Irving  . 

Lee  . 

Lincoln  . 

Longfellow  . 

Loucks  . 

McKinley  . 

Summer  . 

Lucie  B.  Tyng . 

Washington  . 

Webster  . 

White  . 

Whittier  . 

Special  School  . 

Detention  School . 


324 

283 
408 
347 
387 
358 
351 
473 
303 
289 
458 

284 
209 
280 
329 
367 
346 
501 
461 
344 

58 

21 


745.13 
650.84 

938.31 
798.02 
890.01 

823.32 
807.22 

1087.80 

696.83 

664.64 
1053.30 

653.14 

480.65 
643.94 
756.63 
844.02 
795.72 

1152.19 

1060.20 
791.12 
133.39 

48.30 


541.63 
473.09 
682.05 
580.08 
646.95 
598.47 

586.76 
790.71 
506.53 
483.12 

765.63 

474.77 
349.39 
468.07 
550.01 

613.52 
578.41 

837.52 
770.65 
575.07 

96.96 


1691.50 

1450.00 

1700.00 

1700.00 

1450.00 

1700.00 

1695.75 
1700.00 

1442.75 
1450.00 
1700.00 
1450.00 
1455.00 
1700.00 
1700.00 
1700.00 
1450.00 
1700.00 
1428.25 
1450.00 


$5.22 

5.13 

4.17 
4.90 

3.75 

4.75 
4.83 
3.60 

4.76 
5.02 
3.71 
5.11 
6.96 
6.07 

5.17 
4.63 
4.19 
3.39 
3.10 
4.22 


Totals  and  averages  for  elementary  schools.  |  7181  |  $16,514.72  |  $11,969,39  |  $31,713.. 


?5 


73,535.99  j 

$64.34  j 

$2747.95 

$2.40 

$  5654.00 

$4.95 

$1674.63 

$1.47 

$2576.74 

9,639.64  j 

$29.72 

$  278.58 

$  .86 

$  928.31 

$2.87 

$  345.02 

$1.07 

$  216.69 

8,882.44 

1  31.39 

|  244.63 

1  .86 

944.85 

3.34 

398.69 

1.41 

231.97 

10,606.59 

26.00 

337.27 

.83 

1070.69 

2.62 

569.92 

1.40 

457.37 

11,220.68 

32.33 

292.83 

.84 

946.36 

2,73 

400.43 

1.15 

229.45 

9  368.42 

24.21 

305.98 

.79 

1043.29 

2.70 

516.81 

1.34 

238.22 

8,873.10 

24.79 

278.59 

.78 

1085.16 

3.03 

308.39 

.86 

190.81 

12,277.56 

34.98 

262.58 

.75 

1118.99 

3.19 

519.19 

1.48 

231.08 

11,168.10 

23.61 

373.18 

.79 

1085.19 

2  29 

499.49 

1.06 

297.35' 

9,024.15 

29.78 

282.25 

.93 

917.09 

3.03 

339.84 

1.12 

235.82 

8,252.46 

28.56 

442.89 

1.53 

875.76 

3.03 

288.52 

1.00 

144.01 

12,591.70 

27.49 

343.69 

.75 

1086.99 

2.37 

550.74 

1.20 

286.91 

9,092.40 

32.02 

250.81 

.88 

900.00 

3.17 

223.23 

.79 

154.51 

7,112.98 

34.03 

249.26 

1.19 

853.79 

4.09 

426.74 

2.04 

377.74 

9,142.37 

32.65 

219.67 

.78 

878.77 

3.14 

311.70 

1.11 

141.20 

9,389.33 

28.54 

246.32 

.75 

937.37 

2.85 

259.66 

.79 

168.44 

8.377.61 

22.83 

295.77 

.81 

964.38 

2.63 

335.39 

.91 

489.46 

9.950.82 

28.76 

262.13 

.76 

1085.31 

3.14 

372.33 

1.08 

337.35 

14,323.26 

28.59 

389.70 

.78 

1170.00 

2.34 

445.77 

.89 

366.39 

12,893.53 

27.97 

360.99 

.78 

1070.18 

2.32 

474.54 

1.03 

301.24 

8,491.40 

24.68 

289.65 

.84 

991.26 

2.88 

386.56 

1.12 

385.74 

2,511.80 

43.31 

47.94 

.83 

152.21 

2.62 

81.02 

1.40 

65.02 

985.00 

46.90 

13.76 

.66 

[>204,175.34 

|  $28.43 

|  $6,068.48 

|  $  .85' 

|  $19,905.95 

$2.77 

$8053.98 

$1.12 

$5546.77 

Per 

Pupil 


Maintenance,  repairs, 
replacement  of  equip¬ 
ment,  insurance,  etc. 


Amount 


Per 

Pupil 


Promotion  of 
health,  librar¬ 
ies  and  other 
miscellaneous 
expenses  pro¬ 
rated.  Peoria 
High  School 
$  1 .30  per  pu¬ 
pil— all  others 
$.67  per  pupil 


Total  expenses  ex¬ 
clusive  of  outlay 


Amount 


Per 

Pupil 


Interest  on  investment 
and  depreciation  of 
plant  and  equipment 


Amount 


$3.49 

1.07 


979.84 

1702.23 


$1.76 

2.91 


$  724.74 
392.87 


47.242.55 

52,823.60 


$84.66 

90.30 


$  6,440.92 
20,147.52 


$2. 


25  I 


$  .67 
.82 
1.12 
.66 
.62 
.53 
.66 
.63 
.78 
.50 
.63 
.54 
1.81 
.50 
.51 
1.33 
.98 
.73 
.65 
1.12 
1.12 


$ 


614.10 

3434.60 

316.30 
923.88 
955.74 

616.93 

415.86 

676.94 
476.13 

1531.68 

1614.26 

356.17 

846.37 

250.86 
656.99 
661.59 
183.26 

883.31 
808.86 
629.08 

44.97 


$1.90 

12.14 

.78 

2.66 

2.47 

1.72 

1.18 

1.43 

1.57 

5.30 

3.52 

1.25 

4.05 

.90 

2.00 

1.80 

.53 

1.76 

1.75 

1.83 

.77 


217 

190 

274 

233. 

259. 

240. 

235. 

317. 

203. 

194, 

307 

190 

140 

188 

220 

246 

232 

336 

309 

231 

38 

14, 


59 

06 

00 

04 

90 

42 

72 
65 
49 
08 
58 

73 
36 
04 
95 
47 
36 
.46 
.59 
.02 
.95 
10 


$ 


15.218.19 
16,901.17 
16,952.50 
17,324.77 
15,675.32 

14.715.19 
18,150.71 
17,996.41 
14,124.88 
14,327.16 
20,300.80 
13,745.76 
12.292.28 
13,944.62 
14,885.70 
14,528.21 
15,247.69 
21,604.60 
19,478.03 
14,220.90 

3,172.26 

1,061.16 


$46.97 

59.72 

41.55 

49.93 

40.50 

41.10 

51.71 

38.05 

46.62 

49.57 

44.32 

48.40 

58.81 

49.80 

45.25 
39.59 
44.07 
43.12 

42.25 
41.34 
54.69 
50.53 


$  2,128.46 
3,556.06 

7.815.49 
3,620.15 
2,589.35 
3,037.02 
8,003.14 
5,040.25 
5,276.81 
1,897.71 
4,587.75 
2,742.20 
3,692.59 
2,677.90 

2.172.49 
5,234.54 
7,620.64 
5,520.13 
5,201.58 
5,878.46 
1,111.03 


Per 

Pupil 


$11.54 

34.44 


$  2682.07  !  $2.35  |  $1117.61  |  $100,066.15  |  $87.55  [  $26,588.44  j  $23.26 


$  6.75 
11.57 
19.16 
10.43 
6.69 
8.48 
22.80 
10.66 
17.42 
6.57 
10.02 
9.66 
17.67 
9.56 
6.60 
14.26 
22.02 
11.02 
11.28 
17.09 
19.16 


$  .77  |  $16,897.88  [  $2.35  |  $4822.56  !  $325,868.31  |  $45.38  |  $89,403.75  |  $12.45 


munities  in  the  east  we  find  numerous  examples  of  school  buildings 
that  have  been  used  for  longer  periods  than  those  suggested  above. 
It  is  for  the  community  to  decide  how  long  its  school  buildings 
shall  be  used.  As  regards  depreciation,  the  estimates  given  above 
on  depreciation  of  equipment  are  especially  unreliable  for  the 
simple  reason  that  there  was  lacking  an  adequate  body  of  data 
showing  distributions.  Furthermore,  only  instructional  equip¬ 
ment  generally  is  included  under  this  head,  equipment  of  buildings 
being  included  under  cost  of  buildings.  Flowever,  whatever  error 
obtains  in  the  estimate  can  safely  be  assumed  to  lie  in  the  direc¬ 
tion  of  underestimation  rather  than  in  that  of  overestimation. 

Comparison  With  Other  Cities 

An  analysis  of  costs  in  a  given  city  is  worth  little  unless 
accompanied  by  a  study  of  corresponding  data  in  other  cities  of 
approximately  the  same  size  and  in  the  same  section  of  the  country. 
It  would  hardly  do  to  compare  educational  costs  of  Peoria  with 
those  of  cities  on  the  Atlantic  or  Pacific  sea-board  or  in  the  Gulf 
States.  Instead,  all  cities  estimated  by  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  the 
Census  to  range  from  40,000  to  100,000  in  population,  and  located 
within  the  states  of  Illinois,  Kentucky,  Indiana,  Ohio,  Michigan, 
Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Iowa,  Missouri,  Kansas,  and  Nebraska,  were 
included  in  the  study.  The  data  for  all  cities  excepting  Peoria  were 
taken  from  reports  sent  to  the  Bureau  of  Education  at  Washington. 
The  attempt  was  made  to  secure  the  information  for  the  school- 
year  1915-1916.  Through  the  kindness  of  the  Commissioner  of 
Education  copies  were  secured  of  all  reports  that  had  been  sent  in. 
These  data  will  appear  in  the  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Educa¬ 
tion  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1917.  Where  reports  for  last 
school-year  were  not  procurable,  the  data  used  are  those  for  the 
most  recent  year  for  which  they  were  obtainable. 

The  data  for  Evansville,  for  instance,  are  those  for  the  school- 
year  1913-14.  After  the  tables  and  diagrams  had  been  completed, 
the  data  for  1915-16  were  secured,  but  they  arrived  too  late  to  be 
incorporated  in  the  tables  and  diagrams.  An  analysis  of  the  state¬ 
ment  of  finances  for  the  public  schools  of  this  city,  exclusive  of  even¬ 
ing*  school  expense,  and  exclusive  of  outlay  and  interest,  shows  a 
total  of  $394,108.58,  making  the  cost  per  pupil  $43.07  instead  of 
$40.76  as  in' Table  III.  This  would  place  Evansville  fifteenth  in 
rank  instead  of  twentieth  as  shown  in  the  table  referred  to. 

*  ,  .  t 

It  will  be  observed  that  there  are  only  three  cities  in  the  list 
that  pay  more  per  pupil  than  is  paid  in  Peoria,  namely  South  Bend, 
Fort  Wayne,  and  Davenport.  South  Bend  pays  a  total  of  $53.54 
per  pupil  as  compared  to  $51.06  in  the  case  of  Peoria.  But  South 
Bend  paid  $2.49  more  per  pupil  for  operation,  $1.69  more  for  main- 


11 


tenance,  $1.75  more  for  auxiliary  agencies,  and  $.51  more  for 
miscellaneous  expense  per  pupil  than  Peoria  did.  An  analysis  of 
details,  not  shown  in  the  above  table,  shows  that  the  significant 
items  of  expense  for  the  two  cities  were  as  follows: 


South  Bend 

Peoria 

Excess 

Wages  of  janitors . 

. .$31,705 

$27,525 

$  4,180 

Fuel  . . . 

_ _  13,697 

10,462 

3,235 

Light  and  Power . . 

_  10,123 

3,150 

6,973 

Water  . 

.  2,777 

2,777 

Libraries  . . 

. .  1 ,950 

350 

1,600 

Playgrounds  . . . . 

.  11,424 

136 

11,288 

Pensions  . 

. .  7,656 

3,008 

4,648 

With  reference  to  the  comparatively  large  amount  spent  for 
playgrounds  as  an  item  of  the  school  budget  in  South  Bend,  and 
the  very  small  amount  in  the  case  of  Peoria,  it  may  be  of  interest 
to  note  that  the  city  government  expenditure  for  parks  and  play¬ 
grounds  in  these  two  cities  shows  that  the  difference  between  the 
costs  for  this  item  in  the  two  cities  is  not  as  great  as  might  be  in¬ 
ferred  from  these  school  statistics.  The  city  of  Peoria  spent  $54,288, 
or  $.78  per  capita,  for  this  purpose,  while  South  Bend  spent  $18,187, 
or  $.28  per  capita.  _  To  the  taxpayer  it  makes  little  difference  as 
far  as  cost  is  concerned,  whether  the  amount  he  pays  for  play¬ 
grounds  is  paid  out  of  the  city  treasury  or  out  of  the  treasury  of  the 
school  district.  The  amount  spent  for  playgrounds  out  of  the  school 
budget,  in  South  Bend,  namely  $11,424,  represents  a  cost  of  $1.50, 
per  pupil. 

In  the  case  of  Fort  Wayne  the  total  cost  per  pupil  was  $53.47, 
only  7  cents  per  pupil  below  that  of  South  Bend.  While  the  total 
cost  per  pupil  was  $2.41  greater  than  in  the  case  of  Peoria,  Fort 
Wayne  spent  more  per  pupil  than  Peoria  as  follows :  operation, 
$1.51;  maintenance,  $.69;  auxiliary  agencies,  $4.42.  The  item  that 
attracts  attention  first  of  all  is  that  of  the  high  cost  for  auxiliary 
agencies.  In  the  report  to  the  Bureau  of  Education  the  cost  for 
libraries  is  given  as  $25,142;  playgrounds,  $3,315;  these  two  items, 
with  other  items  under  the  head  of  promotion  of  health  total 
$29,726. 

In  the  case  of  Davenport,  the  excess  over  Peoria  is  mainly  due 
to  the  cost  of  maintenance,  which  shows  a  per  pupil  cost  of  $7.19,  as 
compared  to  that  of  $2.35  for  Peoria,  showing  a  difference  of  $4.84 
per  pupil.  Davenport  paid  more  per  pupil  for  repairs  than  any 
other  citv  in  the  list.  The  total  sum  paid,  $46,858,  divides  as  fol¬ 
lows :  Insurance,  $820;  repair  and  replacement  of  equipment, 

$3,992 ;  repair  of  buildings  and  upkeep  of  grounds  $42,046.  An 
examination  of  previous  reports  shows  that  the  cost  per  pupil  for 


12 


Table  III. 


Total  cost  and  per  pupil  cost  of  classified  expenditures,  exclusive  of  outlay,  for  public  day  schools  in  Peoria 
and  twenty-six  other  cities  ranging  in  population  from  40,000  to  100,000,  1915-1916. 


CITY 


Akron,  Ohio  . 

Bay  City,  Mich . 

Canton,  Ohio  . 

Covington,  Ky . 

Davenport,  Iowa . 

Des  Moines,  Iowa . 

Duluth,  Minn.,  1913-14 . 

East  St.  Louis,  Ill . 

Evansville,  Ind.,  1913-14  (b)  . . 

Flint,  Mich . 

Fort  Wayne,  Ind.  .  .  .' . 

Kalamazoo,  Mich . 

Kansas  City,  Kans . 

Lincoln,  Nebr . 

Peoria,  Ill . 

Racine,  Wis . 

Rockford,  Ill . 

St.  Joseph,  Mo . 

Saginaw,  Mich.,  East  Side  (c) 
Saginaw,  Mich.,  West  Side 

Sioux  City,  Iowa . 

South  Bend,  Ind . 

Springfield,  Ill . 

Springfield,  Ohio . 

Superior,  Wis . 

Terre  Haute,  Ind.,  1913-14.. 

Topeka,  Kans . 

Wichita,  Kans . 

Averages . 


Estimated 

Population 

(a) 

Number  of  : 
pupils  in 
average 
daily- 

attendance  ! 

Administration 

Amt.  Per  pupil 

Instruction 

Amt.  Per  pupil 

Operation 

Amt.  Per  pupil 

Maintenance 

Amt.  Per  pupil 

Auxiliary 

Agencies 

Amt.  Per  pupil 

% 

Miscellaneous 

Amt.  Per  pnpil 

Total,  exclusive 
of  outlay 

Amt.  Per  pupil 

80,291  | 

15  368  1 

$21,276  1 

$1.42  | 

$432,816 

$28.16 

$63,837 

$4.14 

$18  696  | 

$1.22  | 

$  5,057 

$  .33 

. i 

$  541,682 

$35.25 

46,153 

5,943 

6,800 

1.14 

191,248 

32.18 

33,025 

5.55 

21,875 

3.68 

200 

.03 

253, 148 

42.59 

57,426 

8,624 

12,819 

1.49 

250,443 

29.04 

38,796 

4.50 

56,903 

6.59 

3,588 

.41 

$  4,050 

$  .47 

366,599 

42.51 

55,896 

4,570 

8,330 

1.82 

147,716 

32.32 

19,547  ' 

4.28 

7,997 

1.75 

1,056 

.23 

6,401 

1.40 

189,991 

41,58 

46,537 

6,516 

9,256 

1.42 

241,597 

37.08 

39,615 

6.08 

46,858 

7.19 

5,486 

.83 

3,624 

.55 

346,437 

33.17 

97,304 

16,305 

26,236 

1.61 

621,851 

38.14 

135084 

8.28 

39,398 

3.41 

4,978 

.31 

2,274 

.14 

831,600 

51.00 

89,331 

12,291 

13,476 

1.10 

385,184 

31.34 

68,443 

5.57 

13,104 

1.07 

7,627 

.62 

984 

.08 

488,818 

39.78 

69,502 

7,920 

15,411 

1.95 

226,328 

28.58 

39,278 

4.96 

14,930 

1.89 

1,187 

.15 

2,428 

.31 

299,562 

37.82 

71  284 

7  915 

9  096 

1  1  5 

?49  464 

31  5’2 

38  591 

4  87 

13  403 

1  70 

12068 

1.52 

322,622 

40.76 

49,981 

7,247 

13885 

1.92 

150,318 

20.74 

27,412 

3.78 

14,776 

2.04 

5,922 

.82 

13,756 

1.90 

226,069 

31.19 

72,423 

6,769 

8,631 

1.28 

257,227 

38.00 

45,500 

6.73 

20,575 

3.04 

29,726 

4.40 

241 

.03 

361,900 

53.47 

46  222 

5,563 

13,839 

2.49 

212,013 

38.11 

31,533 

5.67 

7,928 

1.43 

15,448 

2.78 

390 

.07 

281,151 

50.54 

94,271 

12,564 

32,252 

2.57 

380,019 

30.25 

67,186 

5.35 

52,467 

4.18 

11,884 

.94 

9,415 

.75 

559,716 

44.56 

45,515 

7,764 

20,093 

2.59 

291,358 

37.53 

44,101 

5.68 

30,183 

3.89 

3,981 

.51 

2,041 

.27 

391,757 

50.46 

70,006 

8,933 

|  20,544 

2.30 

361,546 

|  40.47 

46,592 

5.22  |(d)  20,950  i 

2.35  | 

1,088  | 

.12  | 

5.397  | 

.60  | 

456,117  | 

51.06 

44,528 

6,366 

8,229 

1.29 

182,632 

28.69 

32,167 

5.06 

19,225 

3.02 

4,678 

.74 

7,917 

1.24 

254,848 

40.03 

52  337 

7  624 

10  094 

1  32 

i  238  125 

31  23 

55  322 

7  26 

17  763 

2  33 

6  206 

.82 

327,510 

42.96 

83,132 

9,418 

19,489 

2.07 

|  295,344 

31.36 

61,008 

6.48 

20,401 

2.17 

2,867 

.31 

857 

.91 

399,966 

42.47 

33  114 

4  118 

10  654 

2  59 

134  842 

32  74 

25  916 

6.29 

12,460 

3  03 

6,311 

1.54 

190,184 

46.18 

21  287 

3  236 

3  672 

1  14 

82  844 

25  60 

20,739 

6.42 

17  137 

5.30 

3,646 

1.13 

128,038 

39.57 

54,470 

8,085 

12,210 

1.51 

303,901 

37.59 

53,860 

5.67 

20,887 

2.59 

5,877 

.72 

3,392 

.42 

400,127 

49.49 

65,114 

7,619 

10,440 

1.37 

285,452 

37.48 

58,735 

7.71 

30.750 

4.04 

14,166 

1.87 

8,405 

1.11 

407,948 

53.54 

58,221 

7,422 

21,037 

2.83 

260,251 

35.07 

36,657 

4.94 

22  762 

3.07 

3,424 

.46 

2.818 

.38 

346,949 

46.75 

50/058 

7  239 

5  487 

76 

218  324 

30.16 

35,783 

4.95 

7,151 

.99 

400 

.06 

267,145 

36  90 

44,109 

5,447 

8,251 

1.52 

187,407 

34.41 

34,655 

6.37 

8,361 

1.54 

1,920 

. 

.36 

5,494 

1.01 

246,088 

45.18 

.  |  63,529 

8,485 

|  19,250 

2.27 

|  286,700 

33.79 

65,850 

|  7.76 

29  000 

3.42 

15,800 

1.86 

950 

.11 

417,550 

49.21 

47  102 

7,056 

10,684 

1.51 

|  232,681 

32.98 

38,818 

5.50 

25,520 

3.62 

3,318 

.47 

5  418 

.77 

317,608 

45.01 

64,972 

8,345 

16,272 

1.95 

237.605 

28.47 

34,066 

4.08 

20,951 

2.51 

2,653 

.32 

. 

311,920 

37.37 

1 

1 

|  $1.73 

1 

|  $32.61 

I  $5.69 

2.97 

82 

.50  | 

44.30 

* 

(a)  From  “Financial  Statistics  for  Cities,”  1915.  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Census. 

(b)  Explained  in  the  text. 

(c)  The  population  of  Saginaw  is  estimated  at  54,401.  The  City  is  divided  into  two  school  districts. 

(d)  It  will  be  observed  that  the  cost  of  maintenance,  according  to  this  table,  is  less  by  $261  than  the  amount  shown  in  Table  II.  The  totals  differ  to  the  same  extent.  This 
is  due  to  the  difference  between  the  amounts  paid  for  insurance  last  year  and  the  actual  insurance  cost  for  each  building. 


maintenance  for  the 'years  1910-11  to  1915-16,  averages  $5.34,  which 
is  unusually  high  for  cities  of  this  size.  Four  of  the  17  buildings 
in  Davenport  are  more  than  half-a-century  old,  and  a  fifth  has  been 
used  for  forty-nine  years.  Half  of  them  have  been  used  for  more 
than  30  years.  Eight  have  been  enlarged  or  have  had  improve¬ 
ments  made  on  them  within  recent  years.  Perhaps  part  of  the 
charge  for  repairs  ought  to  have  been  included  under  outlay.  An 
item  in  the  newspapers  a  few  days  ago  reported  the  fact  that  at  the 
recent  school-election,  the  citizens  of  Davenport  authorized  the 
bonding  of  the  district  for  the  erection  of  three  new  buildings  to 
be  used  for  Junior  High  School  purposes. 

One  city,  DesMoines,  pays  practically  the  same  amount  per 
pupil  as  does  Peoria.  DesMoines  pays  $3.06  more  per  pupil  for 
operation  and  $1.06  more  for  maintenance.  The  conditions  in  Des 
Moines  are  very  different  from  those  of  Peoria  in  one  important 
respect.  Peoria  is  compactly  built.  Not  so  with  DesMoines.  The 
population  of  DesMoines  exceeds  that  of  Peoria  by  only  about  50 
per  cent.  But  DesMoines  covers  an  area  almost  6  times  as  great 
as  that  of  Peoria.  The  population  is  scattered  more.  There  is  a 
proportionately  larger  number  of  buildings.  That  necessarily  means 
increased  cost  of  operation  and  maintenance  per  pupil.  It  would 
likewise  mean,  as  far  as  tendency  goes,  increased  cost  per  pupil 
for  principals’  salaries. 

As  far  as  Peoria  is  concerned,  the  most  significant  thing  about 
Table  III.,  however,  is  the  high  cost  of  instruction  per  pupil  in 
Peoria  as  compared  to  that  in  other  cities  in  the  list.  Peoria  pays 
$40.47,  which  is  $2.33  more  than  is  paid  by  Des  Moines,  second  in 
rank;  $2.36  more  than  the  cost  in  Kalamazoo,  third  in  rank;  $2.47 
more  than  the  cost  in  Fort  Wayne,  fourth  in  rank;  $2.88  more  than 
in  Sioux  City;  fifth  in  rank. 


4 


13 


PART  II. 


IS  PEORIA  PAYING  MORE  THAN  IS  NECESSARY? 

Per  Capita  Cost. 

The  analysis  above  shows  how  much  is  being  paid  per  pupil. 
There  is  nothing  about  such  an  analysis  to  show  whether  or  not 
a  given  community  is  paying  more  than  it  can  afford  to  pay.  It 


Table  IV. 

Per  capita  cost  for  expenditures  of  public  schools,  exclusive  of  outlay,  in  Peoria 

#  and  twenty-six  other  cities. 


CITY 

Estimated 

population 

Expenditures 

1915-1916 

Total  Per  Capita 

Rank 

Akron  . 

80,291 

$541,682 

$6.75 

5 

Bay  City  (a) . 

46,153 

253,148 

5.48 

20 

Canton  . 

57,426 

366  599 

6.39 

9 

Covington  . 

55,896 

189  991 

3.40 

28 

Davenport  . 

46,537 

346,437 

7.44 

3 

Des  Moines  . 

97,304 

831,600 

8.55 

2 

Duluth  (b) . 

89,331 

488,818 

5.47 

21 

East  St.  Louis . 

69,502 

299,562 

4.31 

27 

Evansville  . 

71,284 

394,109 

5.53 

19 

Flint  . 

49,981 

226,069 

4.52 

26 

Fort  Wayne . ’ . 

72,423 

361  900 

5.00 

23 

Kalamazoo  . 

46,222 

281,151 

6.08 

12 

Kansas  City,  Kans . 

94,271 

559,716 

5.94 

15 

Lincoln  . 

45,515 

391,757 

8.61 

1 

Peoria  . 

70,006 

456,174 

6.52 

8 

Racine  . 

44,528 

254,848 

5.72 

17 

Rockford  . 

52,337 

327,510 

6.26 

11 

St.  Joseph  . 

83,132 

399,966 

4.81 

24 

Saginaw,  East  Side . 

33,114 

190,184 

5.74 

16 

Saginaw,  West  Side . 

!  21,287 

128,038 

6.01 

13 

Sioux  City  . 

54,470 

400,127 

7.35 

4 

South  Bend  . 

I  65,114 

407,948 

6.27 

10 

Springfield,  Ill . 

58,221 

346,949 

5.96 

14 

Springfield,  O . 

50,058 

267,145' 

5.34 

22 

Superior  . 

44,109 

246,088 

5.58 

18 

Terre  Haute  (b) . 

63,529 

417,550 

6.58 

7 

Topeka  . 

47,102 

317,608 

6.74 

6 

Wichita  . 

64,972 

311,920 

4.80 

25 

Average  . 

I 

5.97 

(a)  Statistics  for  1912-13;  (b)  statistics  for  1913-14. 


14 


does  not  show  the  relative  burden  of  taxation  in  different  com¬ 
munities.  One  way  of  attempting  to  determine  this  matter  is  by 
a  study  of  the  cost  of  education  per  every  inhabitant.  Table  IV 
shows  the  per  capita  cost  for  expenditures  of  public  schools  in 
all  of  the  cities  studied  above.  The  total  expenses  are  the  same 
as  those  found  in  Table  III,  excepting  for  Evansville,  in  which 
case  the  expenditures  for  1915-16  are  given.  Peoria  is  eighth  in 
rank.  In  Table  VI  in  which  the  per  capita  costs  are  for  the 
fiscal  year  1914,  Peoria  ranks  fifth.  It  would  not  do  to  infer 
from  this  that  the  cost  was  decreased  during  the  interim  of  ap¬ 
proximately  two  years.  The  data  used  by  the  Bureau  of  the  Census 
were  those  obtained  from  the  books  of  the  secretary,  and  because 
the  distributions  are  incorrect,  the  ranking  as  to  per  capita  cost  is 
likewise  at  fault. 

The  Work  To  Be  Done 

It  would  not  do  to  assume  that  the  per  capita  cost  is  a  reliable 
index  as  to  the  amount  of  wealth  contributed  in  proportion  to  the 
needs  of  the  schools.  For  some  cities  have  a  greater  educational 
need  to  meet  than  others.  The  percentage  of  children  of  school 
age  is  larger  in  some  communities  than  it  is  in  others.  The  Census 
for  1910  shows,  for  instance,  that  iir  Bay  City  the  number  of  child¬ 
ren  from  5-14  years  of  age  constituted  20  per  cent  of  the  population, 
while  Flint  in  the  same  state,  shows  a  percentag-e  of  only  12.6.  Peo¬ 
ria  ranked  comparatively  low,  with  only  15.3  per  cent.  However, 
it  would  not  do  to  infer  that  the  community  rank  as  to  the  work 
to  be  done  by  the  public  schools  is  the  same  as  its  rank  according 
to  the  percentage  of  population  that  is  made  up  of  children  of  school 
age.  A  large  percentage  of  such  children  may  not  be  attending 
the  public  schools.  Some  may  notvbe  attending  any  school.  The 
latest  sources  of  information,  which  are  to  appear  in  the  Report 
of  the  Commissioner  of  Education  for  the  year  ending  Tune  30, 
1917,  show,  for  instance,  that  in  Des  Moines,  96  per  cent  of  all  chil¬ 
dren  enrolled  in  any  schools  are  enrolled  in  the  public  schools.  In 
Covington  only  57  per  cent  of  school-enrolled  children  were  en¬ 
rolled  in  the  public  schools.  For  Peoria  the  percentage  was  83.5. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  reported  number  of  pupils  attending 
parochial  and  private  schools  is  generally  based  on  nothing  more 
than  an  estimate  it  was  thought  advisable  not  to  make  use  of  these 
data  in  this  study. 

•  •  #  *  .'V  <  .  s*  , 

It  is  very  apparent  from  a  consideration  of  these  facts  that  the 
cost  per  capita  is  no  reliable  index  as  to  how  much  money  is  con¬ 
tributed  by  the  community  in  proportion  to  the  educational  needs 
of  the  community.  A  given  per  capita  cost  for  educating  18  per 
cent  of  the  total  population,  for  instance,  would  not  be  doing  as 


15 


Des  Moines 


ICO 

•<* 

»co 

ICO 

oo 

04 

05 

t- 

o 

ac 

rH 

t- 

CO 

■'t 

Tf< 

<N 

CO 

co 

GO 

t- 

■*< 

o 

o 

C4 

rS 

o 

ICO 

co 

L- 

io 

iCO 

co 

54 

Ol 

o 

O 

05 

C5 

05 

t- 

ICO 

ico 

CO 

© 

oo 

co 

CO 

CO 

oo 

t-" 

o’ 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

ia 

uo 

ICO 

Co 

ICO 

ICO 

ICO 

ICO 

ICO 

ICO 

ICO 

Tji 

Tt? 

Tji 

CO 

$2.50  $5.00  $7.50 

Diagram  I. — Per  capita  cost  for  expenditures  of  public  schools,  Peoria  and  twenty-six  other  cities. 


rH 

© 

GO 

<N 

q 

Cl 

00 

o 

LO 

\q 

CO 

o 

t- 

rH 

CO 

Cl 

GO 

t- 

tH 

co 

o 

t- 

CO 

rH 

00 

OI 

o 

1- 

o' 

LO 

id 

h}5 

Tjl 

00 

00 

CO 

oi 

oi 

oi 

oi 

oi 

oi 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

’  rH 

oi 

CO* 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

Xfl 


xi 

o 


■s  I 

0> 


m 


Xl 


op 


£ 

9 

H 

>> 

4-> 

■+H 

4-> 

O 

rH 

0) 

H 

d 

rH 

is 

CC 

rH 

o 

-M 

S 

M 

I? 

o 

■vj 

4-> 

Tfj 

rH 

•  rH 

OP 

d 

o 

rH 

rH 

CD 

,  -4-* 

d 

X 

•»i 

d 

+-> 

5 

fcfl 

d 

inaw, 

rH 

o 

•  rH 

3 

o 

N 

d 

rH 

d 

o 

hH 

rH 

3> 

-M 

02 

r-H 

•  rH 
> 

XI 

d 

CD 

XI 

o 

City 

r^j 

d 

£ 

-M 

ingtoi 

'So 

d 

Cu 

/■H 

d 

rH 

*3 

K- 

r-q 

i 

d 

*£j 

bC 

rv 

d 

XI 

d 

K*a 

rH 

> 

« 

d 

o 

w 

•  rH 

o 

•  rH 

d 

d 

d 

d 

a 

Cl, 

ca 

d 

d 

o 

d 

►> 

-M 

d 

O 

o 

m 

H 

02 

rH 

r_ 

rH 

02 

HH 

»H 

r*\ 

r  . 

ri 

Ui 

fe 

Ch 

Zfl 

GC. 

02 

w 

02 

a 

w 

02 

rsH 

rH 

r 

HH 

O 

1  7 


Diagram  II. — Pcrcentum  that  the  number  of  pupils  in  average  daily  attendance  in  the  public  schools  is  of  the  total  population,  Peoria  and  twenty-six  other  cities. 


much  per  pupil  as  the  same  contribution  would  be  doing  if  it  had 
to  serve  only  12  per  cent  of  the  whole  population.  Akron 
has  19.1  per  cent  of  its  total  population  in  average  daily  attendance 
in  the  public  schools,  as  compared  to  9.3  per  cent  for  Fort  Wayne. 
Akron  pays  $6.75  per  capita,  Fort  Wayne  pays  $5.00  per  capita. 
But  because  of  its  large  percentage  of  school-attending  children 
Akron  pays  only  $35.25  per  pupil,  while  Fort  Wayne  pays  $53.47  per 
pupil.  Diagram  II.  shows  the  percentage  of  the  whole  population 
that  is  reported  in  average  daily  attendance  in  the  public  schools. 
This  will  serve  as  a  fairly  reliable  index  of  the  relative  burden  borne 
by  the  public  schools  of  the  respective  communities. 


The  Community’s  Ability  To  Pay 

To  determine  the  community’s  ability  to  pay  one  needs  to  con¬ 
sider  the  wealth  of  the  community  in  proportion  to  the  population. 
Diagram  III.  shows  the  wealth  per  capita  of  the  different  cities 
studied.  The  data  are  somewhat  misleading,  however,  in  that  the 
wealth  on  the  basis  of  which  the  wealth  per  capita  is  computed,  is 
that  of  the  school  district,  while  the  population  is  that  of  the  city. 
In  most  of  the  cities  in  the  list  the  boundaries  of  the  school  district 
do  not  coincide  with  those  of  the  city.  But  even  so,  the  per  capita 
wealth,  thus  computed,  is  a  fairly  reliable  index  of  the  commun¬ 
ity’s  ability  to  support  its  schools.  It  is  not  so  true  an  index,  how¬ 
ever,  of  the  ability  of  the  community  to  pay  for  the  support  of  the 
schools  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  children  attending  the  same. 


Wealth  Per  Pupil 

Probably  the  most  reliable  index  of  the  community’s  ability 
to  pay  in  proportion  to  the  educational  needs  that  have  to  be  met 
is  to  be  found  in  the  amount  of  wealth  for  every  pupil  in  regular 
attendance.  This  is  shown  in  Table  V.  and  in  Diagram  TV.  The 
wealth  per  pupil  shows  the  community’s  capacity  to  pay  for  . each 
pupil.  Table  III.  and  Diagram  V.  show  the  amount  actually  paid 
for  each  pupil.  A  comparison  of  Diagrams  IV.  and  V.  gives  some 
idea  of  what  each  city  is  doing  in  proportion  to  its  ability  to  do. 
Peoria,  for  instance,  is  only  twelfth  in  rank  as  to  ability  to  pay  for 
each  pupil,  while  it  is  fourth  in  rank  as  to  the  amount  actually  paid 
per  pupil,  indicating  that  it  is  making  a  greater  sacrifice  than  most 
of  the  cities  in  the  group. 

Contribution  In  Proportion  To  Ability 

To  determine  what  contribution  each  city  is  making  for  every 
pupil  in  proportion  to  its  ability  it  is  necessary  to  compare  the  cost 
per  pupil  with  the  wealth  per  pupil.  Table  V.  shows  what  percen¬ 


ts 


CO 

H 

rH 

rH 

C0 

to 

to 

tH 

O 

rH 

b- 

CO 

rH 

04 

O 

io 

CO 

03 

CO 

O 

t- 

o 

h 

04 

CO 

CO 

CO 

lO 

00 

03 

GO 

04 

rH 

00 

t- 

b- 

to 

O 

io 

to 

03 

04 

CO 

K3 

o> 

04 

O 

03 

CO 

CO 

04 

o 

04 

co 

H 

04 

<N 

<N 

04 

rH 

rH 

rH 

tH 

rH 

© 

o 

O 

O 

03 

03 

03 

03 

03 

00 

CO 

t- 

t- 

l— 

t- 

40 

rH 

iH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

tH 

rH 

rH 

to 

a> 


<V 

a 


'O 


o 

C5  rrj 

•rH  X 

P>> 

cd 

r-H 

03 

a 

p 

CP 

a 

o 

a 

r-H 

o 

CP 

a 

o 

-M 

a 

a 

•rH 

5'  3 
£  S 

£ 

-M 

ta 

be 

_a 

cd 

CP 

a 

<C 

Tfl 

03 

rH 

rH 

a 

a 

M 

•rH 

a 

cd 

O 

O 

O 

a 

o 

P 

< 

O 

a; 

C 

fa 

fa 

sc 

H 

'C 

a 

CD 

fa 


P 

O 

w. 


a 


o 

%D 

CD 

bo 

«s 

?-< 

o> 

> 


03 

a 

s 

02 


o 

o 

N 

CS 

s 

a 


a 


o- 

o 


03 

03 

•rH 

SC 


>5 

l-H 

Tfl 

cd 

o 

4-> 

•rH 

rd 

h 

4-> 

P 

CP 

o 

r— H 

CP 

cd 

-M 

•  rH 

r-H 

C/2 

cd 

cd 

+j 

•  rH 

cd 

tJD 

£ 

a 

hh 

fa 

o 

•hH 

K*- 

C/2 

C/2 

rH 

a 

a 

O 

X 

cj 

fl 

cd 

CP 

% 

•rH 

rH 

a 

•rH 

bo 

a 

CZ2 

rH 

rH 

CP 

H 

p 

o 

•rH 

m 

cd 

> 

fa 

-a 

a 

<D 

to 

o 

bo 


03 

as 

•rH 

m 


m 

CP 


c/2 

•rH 

P 

O 

fa 


a 

o 

> 

fa 

-4-3 

43 

be 

¥* 

a 

m 

•  rH 

O 

a 

a 

-4-3 

-4-> 

’> 

o 

"So 

a 

Tfl 

cd 

*2 

a 

o 

X/l 

fa 

fa 

fa 

19 


$500  $1000  $1500  $2000  $2500 

Diagram  III. — Wealth  per  capita,  Peoria  and  twenty-six  other  cities. 


t- 

O 

a 

O 

CO 

1a 

CD 

C5 

a 

0 

CO 

CD 

CO 

O 

a 

CO 

IO 

rH 

rt< 

0 

05 

CD 

CD 

CD 

ia 

O 

TP 

■H 

CO 

do 

CD 

<M 

<N 

05 

CO 

r- 

rH 

co 

1- 

1C 

»a 

O 

I  — 

rH 

0 

CO 

CD 

CD 

a 

O 

CD 

t- 

00 

cq_ 

GO 

CO 

l- 

CO 

10 

IO 

CO 

<3 

0 

0 

GO 

t- 

CD_ 

CD 

IO 

IO 

CO 

0 

CO 

0 

©_ 

CO 

O 

00“ 

vH 

tH 

a 

H 

a 

05 

Oi 

00” 

0 0“ 

co 

co' 

co' 

go' 

00 

00' 

00' 

L- 

L— ' 

L-' 

l- 

t-’ 

L- 

ir 

1-’ 

o' 

cd“ 

c £ 

>0' 

rj! 

<D 

a 

a 

_a  yS. 


S  O 

Q 


a 

a 

> 

a 

Q 


'O 

a 

a 

K 


a 

o 

02 


a  © 

o  s 

+->  « 

b£  © 

c  5 

•rH  Cw 


o 

u 


a 

M 


a 


O  r-l 


•ph  <D 

O  Q, 

a  p 

Ph  02 


a 

U 


a 

o 


K  ° 
o  rrt- 


a  o 


a 

fcJO 

a 

pH 

0) 


0> 

o 


>.v  ^ 

cd  T1  £d 

•pH  rH 


a 

02 


c 


cd 

n  *  < 

•1— i 

P 

Cd 

cd 

+-> 

c 0 

C/3 

>> 

O 

a 

a 

•  pH 

1— 1 

cd 

73 

0 

rw 

Cd 

P 

rH 

0 

> 

0 

•  rH 

K  _ 

cd 

Ph 

K 

H 

? 

o 

a 

a 


o> 

ta 

a 


02 


02 

4-> 

!» 

a 

W 


tc 

a 

02 


a 

co 

o 


02 


co 

a 

a 


CO 

a 

Q 


<D 


a 


a 


a  co 
a  ca 
a  m 


a 

'O 

•  rH 

X 


a? 

o 


X 


<z 

v\  g 

o  cf- 

•^  cd 

X  X 


Pi 


Pi 

cd 


20 


$5,000  $10,000  $15,000 

Diagram  IV. — Wealth  per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance,  Peoria  and  twenty-six  other  city  school-systems. 


South  Bend 


-P 

1- 

t- 

o 

CO 

o 

rH 

to 

00 

00 

T— i 

CO 

O 

HP 

rH 

o 

© 

IO 

HP 

-p 

C-l 

c- 

rH 

rH 

IO 

CO 

eo‘ 

CO 

rH 

rH 

o 

o 

05 

05 

d 

CO 

>6 

i6 

-p 

It 

IO 

w 

lO 

to 

LO 

to 

HP 

Hp 

HP 

HP  ' 

-p 

HP 

o 

CO 

05 

rH 

t- 

GO 

CO 

CO 

00 

In¬ 

<01 

t- 

o 

IO 

o 

to 

05 

IO 

IO 

Hp 

IO 

1- 

© 

I  — 

to 

CO 

CO 

05 

<01 

rH 

HP 

oi 

ci 

oi 

oi 

rH 

o 

o 

05 

05 

fc— 

i2 

CO 

IO 

rH 

HP 

rp 

hp 

HP 

HP 

hP 

HP 

HP 

CO 

CO 

eo 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

o> 


cz 


m 

<u 


a  5 

•g 

C  m 
o  cd 


O 

o 

N 
C S 


IX 


a  o 

O  X 

.2  o 
P  S 


0>  — 
H-» 

P  'O 

rrt  rr 

Cw  rtj 

a  cp 

of) 

p  5 

rH  rH 

<u  a 
E-h  m 


'O 

•  ^H 

02 

-4— 1 
02 
P 

H 

£ 

P 


o 

•rH 

o 


be 

cs  £3 
£  CZ2 


P 

O 

a 

o 


U 

02 

P 

02 

P 

M 


P 


o 

'O 

•  rH 

m 

4-> 

02 

02 


^H 

o 

<m 

HO 

>- 

r-| 

PH 

a 

© 

02 

£ 

o 

a 

02 

rH 

H-> 

Or1 

4-> 

•M 

£ 

4-> 

oe 

o 

•  rH 

r  ' 

&2 

/H 

Ct) 

r> 

© 

cb 

02 

P 

rH 

«M 

r^J 

W 

c 

4-< 

.2 

JZ2 

P 

01 

•rH 

-M 

P 

a 

+-> 

o 

O 

01 

03 

o 

r— H 

’be 

C/2 

>• 

o 

P 

cS 

-M 

©• 

K" 

P 

P 

CS 

P 

•ejj 

K 

PQ 

o 

ZTl 

U 

w 

« 

Q 

Tfl 

a 

P 

-4—* 

•rH 

03 

w 


0> 

<C 

be 


a 

o 


sc  <1 


21 


$10.00  $20.00.  $30.00  $40.00  $50.00 

Diagram  V. — Cost  per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance,  Peoria  and  twenty-seven  other  cities. 


tage  the  cost  per  pupil  is  of  the  wealth  per  pupil.  The  same  in¬ 
formation  is  given  in  a  more  tangible  way  in  Diagram  VI.  Table 
V.  shows  the  number  of  pupils  and  the  estimated  real  wealth  of  the 
different  cities  compared.  The  estimate  of  the  real  wealth  was 
computed  on  the  basis  of  data  furnished  in  “Financial  Statistics 
of  Cities  for  1917”,  published  by  the  Bureau  of  the  Census,  by 
comparing  the  assessed  valuation  and  the  basis  of  assessment.  In 


Table  V. 

% 


Wealth  per  pupil,  cost  per  pupil,  and  per  centum  of  wealth  per  pupil  contributed, 
in  Peoria  and  twenty-five  other  cities,  1915-1916. 


CITY 

Number 
of  pupils 
in  aver¬ 
age  daily 
attend¬ 
ance 

Estimated 
real  value 
of  property 
assessed  (a) 

Wealth 

per 

Pupil 

Cost  per 
pupil 

Per 

centum 
of  wealth 
per  pupil 
that  is 
contrib¬ 
uted 

Rank  o( 
cities  as 
to  per 
centum 
of  wealth 
per  pupil 
con¬ 
tributed 

Akron  . 

15,368 

$119,118,990 

$  7,751 

$35.25 

.455 

24 

Bay  City . 

5,943 

24,159,588 

4,065 

42.59 

1.047 

1 

Canton  . 

8,624 

73,561,107 

8,529 

42.51 

.498 

20 

Covington  . | 

4  570 

42,713,226 

9,346 

41.58 

.445 

27 

Davenport  . 

6,516 

77,044,948 

11,824 

53.17 

.450 

26 

Des  Moines  . 

16,305 

119,025,360 

7,300 

51.00 

.699 

5 

Duluth,  1913-14 . 

12,291 

230,172,438 

18  727 

39.78 

.212 

28 

East  St.  Louis . 

7,920 

50,443,300 

6,369 

37.82 

.594 

11 

Evansville,  1913-14. . 

7,915 

63,913,570 

8,075 

40.76 

.505 

19 

Flint  . 

7,247 

35,267.451 

4,866 

31.19 

.641 

7 

Fort  Wayne  . 

6,769 

80,281,990 

11,860 

53.47 

.451 

25 

Kalamazoo  . 

5,563 

48,584,350 

8,733 

50.54 

.579 

13 

Kansas  City,  Kans... 

12,564 

96,171,965 

7,655 

44.56 

.582 

12 

Lincoln  . 

7.764 

58,648,600 

7,554 

50.46 

.668 

6 

Peoria  . 

8,933 

72,231,234 

8,086 

51.06 

.631 

8 

Racine  . 

6,366 

55,288,576 

8,685 

40.03 

.461 

22 

Rockford  . 

7,624 

63,591.720 

8,341 

42.96 

.515 

18 

St.  Joseph  . 

9,418 

69,828,710 

7,414 

42.47 

.573 

15 

Saginaw,  East  Side.  . 

4,118 

30,767,307 

7,471 

46.18 

.618 

10 

Saginaw,  West  Side.. 

3,236 

16,230,518 

5,016 

39.57 

.789 

3 

Sioux  City . 

8,085 

49,040  196 

6,066 

49.49 

.816 

2 

South  Bend  . 

7,619 

74,976.325 

9,841 

53.54 

.544 

16 

Springfield,  Ill . 

7,422 

55,693,548 

7,504 

46.75 

.623 

9 

Springfield.  O . 

7,239 

58,620,430 

8,098 

36.90 

.456 

23 

Superior  . 

5,447 

46,660,710 

8,566 

45.18 

.527 

17 

Terre  Haute,  1913-14 

8,485 

58,798,817 

6,930 

49.21 

.710 

4 

Topeka  . 

7,056 

55,108,335'. 

7,810 

45.01 

.576 

14 

Wichita  . 

8,345 

64,029  295 

7,673 

37.37 

.487 

21 

Average  . 

.  j 

.577 

(a)  From  “Financial  Statistics  of  Cities/’  1915,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  the 
Census. 


22 


1- 

CD 

05 

o 

05 

00 

rH 

rH 

CO 

00 

<N 

O 

l- 

CD 

CO 

b- 

30 

30 

00 

t- 

rH 

CD 

rH 

00 

rH 

05 

CD 

CO 

<M 

rH 

05 

00 

l'- 

t- 

<N 

rH 

O 

05 

00 

CD 

30 

O 

00 

t— 

t- 

CD 

CD 

CD 

CD 

CD 

CD 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

■f 

30  1-1  O  l«  <N 

IO  ID  lO  ^  rH 

H<  <N 


43 

a 


. 


<D 

73 

•  rH 

05 


-H 

•H 

O 


p 


« 


if 

o 


P 

O 

•rH 

05 


73 

0> 

£ 

£ 

P 

a 

•H 

to 

P 

05 


<u 

•+■> 

p 

P 

tn 

o 

H 

03 

EH 


73 

03 

a 

I 

o 

M 

3=5 

03 

03 

Q 


a 

f“H 

O 

03 

a 

•  rH 

fa 


cj 

•rH 

rH 

o 

O) 

Ph 


03 

cp 

bO 

a 


fH 

a 

05 


03 

73 

•rH 

OQ 

4J 

72 

cj 

w 

£ 

cj 

a 

•rH 

6*i 

co 

05 


O 

•rH 


72 

r-H 

p 

•rH 

P 

o 

>> 

4-> 

o 

cj 

o 

-a 

70 

a 

<D 

o 

V 

03 

+j 

rH 

u 

72 

cj 

72 

o 

«+H 

a 

03 

P 

t- 

M 

fa 

U1 

-M 

N 

Cj 

s 

cj 

a> 

to 

cj 

p 

P 

03 

O' 

72 

tt 

P 

£h 

o 

•rH 

rH 

03 

70 

Sh 

O 

0-1 

P 

•rH 

t> 

72 

fl 

p 

o 

+J 

5 

•rH 

•a 

o 

a 

•rH 

03 

<p 

W> 

p 

•rH 

P 

o 

>> 

P 

£ 

o 

a 

p 

03 

o 

4-> 

to 

fl 

•rH 

72 

a 

QJ 

a 

r* 

a 

03 

Cj 

p 

H 

> 

o 

Cj 

cj 

Cj 

> 

o 

fa 

c 

o 

> 

p 

•rH 

Cj 

a 

P 

fa 

P 

o 

w 

fa 

fa 

< 

H 

02 

05 

fa 

O 

£ 

« 

05 

fa 

Q 

u 

P 

-t-> 

p 

r-H 

P 


Q 


23 


.200  .400  .600  .800  1.000 

Diagram  VI. — Per  centum/  of  wealth  per  pupil  that  is  actually  contributed  per  pupil,  Peoria  and  twenty-seven  other  city  school-systems. 


the  case  of  Illinois  cities,  for  instance,  the  basis  of  assessment  is 
33  1/3  per  cent.  Hence,  the  estimated  real  wealth  is  equal  to  three 
times  the  assessed  valuation. 

• 

It  will  be  noted  that  of  the  three  cities  paying  more  per  pupil 
than  Peoria,  pamely  South  Bend,  Fort  \\  ayne,  and  Davenport 
not  one  makes  a  sacrifice  comparable  to  that  of  Peoria.  South  Bend 
with  a  greater  per  capita  wealth  than  Peoria  has  a  smaller  number 
of  pupils,  namely  11.7  per  cent  of  its  population,  as  compared  to 
12.8  per  cent  for  Peoria.  As  a  result,  in  wealth  per  pupil  South 
Bend  ranks  fourth,  being  surpassed  only  by  Duluth,  Fort  Wayne 
and  Davenport.  So,  even  though  South  Bend  pays  considerably 
more  per  pupil  than  Peoria,  her  sacrifice  is  considerably  less,  for 
the  cost  per  pupil  is  only  .544  per  cent  of  the  wealth  per  pupil  as 
compared  to  .631  per  cent  for  Peoria.  This  is  simply  another  way 
of  saying  that  in  South  Bend  the  tax  on  every  $1,000,  of  the  esti¬ 
mated  real  wealth  of  the  community  is  $5.44,  while  in  Peoria  it  is 
$6.31. 


Fort  Wayne,  with  a  greater  wealth  per  capita  than  Peoria, 
has  only  9.3  per  cent  of  her  population  in  average  daily  attendance 
in  the  public  schools,  as  compared  to  12.8  per  cent  for  Peoria.  As 
a  result  her  wealth  per  pupil  is  almost  50  per  cent  greater  than 
that  of  Peoria.  With  reference  to  wealth  per  pupil  Fort  Wayne 
r^nks  second,  while  Peoria  ranks  twelfth.  While  Fort  Wayne 
spends  more  per  pupil  than  Peoria,  she  spends  far  less  in  propor¬ 
tion  to  her  wealth.  Her  contribution  per  pupil  is  .451  per  cent  of 
her  wealth  per  pupil,  as  compared  to  .631  for  Peoria.  Davenport, 
the  third  city  paying  more  per  pupil  than  Peoria,  is  second  in' the 
list  as  regards  wealth  per  capita.  The  percentage  of  pupils  in  aver¬ 
age  daily  attendance  is  about  average.  This  leaves  her  ranking  third 
with  ■  reference  to  wealth  per  pupil.  Her  contribution  per  pupil  is 
45  per  cent  of  the  wealth  per  pupil. 

There  are  seven  cities  in  the  last  that  are  making  greater  sac¬ 
rifices  than  Peoria,  namely:  Bay  City,  Flint,  Saginaw  West  Side, 
Sioux  City,  Terre  Haute,  Des  Moines,  and  Lincoln.  Bay  City  with 
least  wealth  per  capita  and  least  wealth  per  pupil,  pays  $42.59  per 
pupil  as  compared  to  Duluth,  the  wealthiest  in  the  group,  which 
pays  $39.78.  Sioux  City,  ranking  second  as  to  sacrifice  made,  has  a 
low  per  capita  wealth,  but  has  a  comparatively  large  number  of 
children  attending  school,  leaving  her  per  pupil  wealth  small — in 
fact,  only  fourth  from  the  lowest.  Des  Moines,  with  16.8  per  cent 
of  her  population  in  school,  has  a  fairly  large  wealth  per  capita,  but 
her  wealth  per  pupil  is  small,  while  in  cost  per  pupil  she  is  fifth 
in  rank. 

If  the  three  cities  paying  more  per  pupil  than  Peoria  had  made 


24 


sacrifices  in  proportion  to  that  made  by  Peoria  they  would  have  paid 
as  follows : 

South  Bend,  .631  per  cent  of  $9,841,  or  $62.0967  per  pupil,  or  a 
total  of  $473,115  for  7,619  pupils,  instead  of  $407,948. 

Fort  Wayne,  .631  per  cent  of  $11,860,  or  $74.8366  per  pupil,  or 
a  total  of  $506,569  for  6,769  pupils,  instead  of  $361,900. 

Davenport,  .631  per  cent  of  $11,824,  or  $74.6094  per  pupil,  or 
a  total  of  $486,155  for  6,516  pupils,  instead  of  $346,437. 

Expenditures  For  Schools  And  For  Other  Purposes 

In  discussing  the  question  of  the  ability  of  the  community  to 
contribute  for  the  support  of  its  public  schools  one  other  important 
factor  needs  to  be  considered,  namely  that  of  taxation  for  other 
purposes.  Table  VI.  shows  the  per  capita  cost  for  the  support  of 
the  public  schools  as  compared  to  the  per  capita  cost  for  other  city 
expenditures.  Under  the  head  of  expenditures  for  general  depart¬ 
ments  of  city  government  are  included  general  expenses,  cost  of 
police  department,  fire  department,  cost  of  sanitation,  construction 
and  care  of  highways,  and  all  other  expenditures  of  the  city  govern¬ 
ment  excepting  interest  on  indebtedness,  and  outlay.  It  will  be 
observed  that  the  per  capita  costs  for  school  purposes  are  generally 
lower  than  those  in  Table  IV.  They  are  based  on  expenditures 
for  the  fiscal  year  1914,  thus  including  expenditures  for  the  last  six' 
months  of  the  school  year  1913-14  and  the  first  four  months  of  the 
school  year  1914-15.  Peoria  ranks  twenty-fourth  in  the  list  as  to 
the  percentage  that  the  expenditures'  for  schools  are  of  the  total 
expenditures. 

How  Much  Ought  To  Be  Spent  For  School  Purposes? 

The  question  as  to  how  much  ought  to  be  spent  for  school 
purposes  depends  on  a  variety  of  factors.  In  the  first  place  the 
educational  needs  of  the  community,  represented  by  the  relative 
number  of  pupils,  ought  to  be  considered  ;  in  the  second  place  the 
community  means,  represented  by  the  wealth  per  pupil.  A  wealthy 
community  can  afford  to  pay  more  for  the  schooling  of  its  children 
than  can  a  poorer  community.  To  say  that  a  given  city  should  pay 
as  much  per  pupil  as  the  average  for  . a  given  group  of  cities  is  to 
ignore  both  of  the  above  mentioned  factors.  Probably  the  average 
cost  per  pupil  is  lower  than  it  ought  to  be,  for  a  large  majority  of 
the  cities  paying  less  than  the  average  per  pupil  are  below  the  av¬ 
erage  in  wealth  per  pupil.  In  other  words,  were  they  wealthier 
they  could  afford  to  pay  more  per  pupil  and  probably  would  do  so. 

Perhaps  it  is  a  fair  assumption  that  communities  that  are  above 
the  average  in  wealth  per  pupil  are  paying  as  much  per  pupil  as  is 
necessary.  The  average  cost  per  pupil  in  all  cities  with  as  great 


25 


a  wealth  per  pupil  as  Peoria  was  $45.89.  Had  Peoria  spent  $45.89, 
per  pupil,  the  total  cost  would  have  been  $409,935.37.  In  other 
words,  if  Peoria  had  spent  as  much  per  pupil  as  the  average  for 
the  cities  having  a  wealth  per  pupil  equal  to  or  greater  than  her 
own,  her  school  bill  would  have  been  $46,181.56  less  than  it  was. 
Perhaps  a  still  fairer  test  to  apply  would  be  the  average  per  cent 
that  the  cost  per  pupil  is  of  the  wealth  per  pupil  in  the  twenty 


Table  VI. 


Per  capita  cost  for  school  purposes  compared  to  per  capita  cost  for  total  expendi 
tures  of  city  government,  exclusive  of  outlay  and  interest  (a) 


CITY 

Per  capita  cost 
of  expenditures 
for  public 
schools 

Per  capita  cost 
of  expenses  of 
general  depart¬ 
ments  of  city 
government,  ex¬ 
penses  of  schools 
included 

Per  cent,  that  the 
school  per  cap. 
cost  is  of  the  total 
per  capita  cost 

Rank  as  to  the  per 
cent,  that  the  per 
cap.  cost  for 
schools  is  of  the  per 
cap.  cost  for  all 
department 
expenditures 

Akron  . 

$6.37 

$13.42 

47.5 

10 

Bay  City . 

4.69 

9.52 

49.3 

5 

Canton  . 

4.68 

9.72 

48.1 

8 

Covington  . 

3.36 

11.17 

30.1 

27 

Davenport  . 

7.22 

15.65 

46.1 

12 

l)es  Moines  . 

7.62 

15.78 

48.3 

7 

Duluth  . 

5.40 

13.90 

38.8 

25 

East  St.  Louis.  . .  . 

3.45 

9.82 

35.1 

26 

Evansville  . 

4.45 

10.22 

43.5 

16 

Flint  . 

3.86 

8.34 

46.3 

11 

Fort  Wayne  . 

4.21 

10.58 

39.8 

23 

Kalamazoo  . 

5.63 

11.01 

51.1 

2 

Kansas  City,  Kans. 

4.83 

10.56 

45.8 

13 

Lincoln  . 

5.60 

10.84 

51.7 

1 

Peoria  . 

5.76 

14.74 

39.1 

24 

Racine  . 

5.35 

12.46 

42.9 

18 

Rockford  . 

5.05 

11.53 

43.8 

15 

St.  Joseph  . 

4.52 

10.96 

41.2 

20 

Saginaw  . 

5.24 

12.08 

43.4 

17 

Sioux  City  . 

6.46 

13.01 

49.7 

4 

South  Bend  . 

4.57 

9.40 

48.6 

6 

Springfield,  Ill ...  . 

4.99 

11.84 

42.1 

19 

Springfield,  O . 

4.39 

10.91 

.  40.2 

22 

Superior  . 

5.72 

14.04 

40.9 

21 

Terre  Haute  . 

5.11 

11.51 

44.4 

14 

Topeka  . 

5.74 

11.23 

51.1 

3 

Wichita  . 

4.34 

9.06 

47.9 

9 

Averages  .... 

5.13 

11.60 

44.3 

(a)  From  “Financial  Statistics  for  Cities,”  1915,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  the 

Census. 


26 


/ 


eight  school  systems  under  consideration.  Table  V.  shows  this 
average  to  be  .577  per  cent.  Had  Peoria  spent  .577  per  cent  of  her 
wealth  per  pupil,  the  total  cost  would  have  been  $416,779.83.  That 
is  to  say,  had  Peoria  made  a  sacrifice  equal  to  that  of  the  average 
for  all  the  cities  in  the  group,  the  running  expenses  for  her  schools 
would  have  been  $39,337.10  less  than  they  were. 


Income  Limited  By  Law 

But  Peoria  is  confronted  by  a  “condition,  not  a  theory’’.  It  is 
not  so  much  a  question  as  to  how  much  she  ought  to  spend  for  her 
schools  in  comparison  to  what  other  cities  are  spending.  A  far 
more  practical  problem  needs  to  be  solved,  namely  this :  will  her  in¬ 
come  enable  her  to  maintain  her  schools  next  year  and  thereafter 
on  the  present  basis?  Section  189  of  the  general  school  law  of  Illi¬ 
nois  prescribes  that  the  levy  on  the  assessed  valuation  of  a  school 
district  shall  not  exceed  one  and  one-half  per  cent  for  educational, 
and  one  and  one-half  per  cent  for  building  purposes.  The  same  sec¬ 
tion  provides  that  the  board  may  be  authorized  by  the  electors  of  the 
district  to  levy  up  to  2  per  cent  for  the  educational  fund,  provided 
that  the  levy  for  both  purposes  shall  not  exceed  3  per  cent.  The 
electors  of  tlie  school  district  of  Peoria  a  few  years  ago  authorized 
the  Board  of  School  Inspectors  to  levy  up  to  one  and  three-fourths 
per  cent  for  educational  purposes.  Before  this  authorization  the 
Board  found  it  necessary  to  draw  on  the  building  fund  for  educa¬ 
tional  purposes,  as  the  educational  fund  was  not  adequate  to  the  de¬ 
mands  made  upon  it.  For  instance,  two  years  ago  janitors’  wages  to 
the  amount  of  $26,747.75  were  paid  from  the  building  fund,  although 
they  may  not,  under  the  law,  be  paid  from  this  fund.  Last  year  at 
least  $5,861.38  of  the  $9,348.83  expended  for  furnishings  ought  to 
have  been  taken  from  the  educational  fund.  Pianos,  organs  and 
movable  furniture  ought  to  be  paid  for  from  the  educational  fund, 
not  from  the  building  fund. 


Probable  Income  For  Educational  Fund,  1917-18 

The  assessed  valuation  of  the  school  district  of  Peoria  on  which 
a  levy  of  one  and  three-fourths  per  cent  may  be  made  for  the  next 
school  year  is  $24,590,150.  That  would  amount  to  $430,327.63. 
From  this  there  needs  to  be  deducted  three  per  cent,  namely  two 
per  cent  for  commission,  and  an  allowance  of  one  per  cent  to  cover 
loss  of  taxes  not  collected.  This  would  leave  a  balance,  available 
for  the  educational  fund,  of  $417,217.80.  State  taxes  will  probably 
amount  to  $35,000;  rents,  $5,800;  interest  on  funds,  $2,000;  tuition, 
$1,500,  making  a  total  of  $461,717.80. 


27 


Probable  Expenditures 

This  year’s  appropriation  for  the  educational  fund  was  $460,- 
839.18.  The  indications  are  that  there  will  be  little,  if  any,  balance 
left  on  hand  at  the  end  of  the  school  year.  The  increases  in  sal¬ 
aries  automatically  arising  through  the  operation  of  the  adopted 
schedule  will  amount  to  $14,030.00  next  year.  Other  expenditures 
will  probably  amount  to  at  least  $11,000  more  than  this  year.  This 
is  on  the  assumption  that  coal  will  cost  as  much  next  year  as  it 
did  this,  and  that  as  much  fuel  will  be  needed,  that  the  cost  of  light 
and  power  will  be  equal  to  that  of  this  year,  and  after  making  a 
conservative  estimate  that  different  classes  of  supplies  will  cost 
from  ten  to  hftv  per  cent  more  next  year.  It  likewise  assumes  the 
need  of  a  vigilant  economy.  This  would  give  a  total  of  $485,869.18 
as  the  estimate  for  next  year's  expenditures  from  the  educational 
fund.  This  amount  exceeds  that  of  the  estimated  income  for  edu¬ 
cational  purposes  by  $24,151.38. 


28 


sO 

O' 

hH 

in 

on 


n 

<u 


ft 

(U 

-C 

— 

o 

X 

Ifl 

I 

x. 

4-> 

c 

<u 

£ 

~a 

c 

CS 

CS 

’ft 

O 

u 

cu 


o 

o 

X 

O 

l« 

Jft 

58 

■o 


in 

E 

a> 


in 

3 

O 


in 

O 

o 


a 

3 

n. 

ft 

4> 

a 

T3 

C 

C8 

w 

C/3 

o 

o 

"« 

4-1 

o 

H 


o 


a 

ft 

ft 

II 


I  ^  I 

ft  4>  X 
3X1  <U 

U)  — j 1 

.  o  o 
■'■x  .2 

*”<  r-1  •+-> 

a;  ~  a 

c  03  r 

O  -  in 
•x  rXi  X 
3  •— *  ^ 
(O  ft*” 


ft 

3 

ft 

ft 

U 

ft 


t/5 

X 

o 

o 

X 

4-1 

M 

<U 

t* 


ft 

ft 

ft 

V 

ft 


2 

<! 


in 

ft 

<u 

X 

o 

c8 

U 


in 

W 


vOOO'tMOO’^'tOOM'^O'-^Of'SKONfO'O^'OOiXNVO'HOiOOK 

rHr-iOfOOrHCOiOi^NO’-'Mur^'OMtON'Ou'j'tO'H'tKC'rt' 

cd  cm  on  cm  rd  oo  -ft  oo  i— <  o’  oo  oo  o’  rd  o  oo  4-1  d  <xi  no  rd  id  id  o"  xf  cd  cxi  od 

MrCMfOfOrorc(NfOCMfOfOfOtO,tNfOfO(ONrCfCfOrOfOCC(v)“ 
69- 


CM 


^Q0f0'OKrHT)-C0^00K!OO\00l0Nin'tN^-r-l(\lr-(^tNO’-llO 
rl't^'-iCMOCOC'IO^M'HrHin^POM't^^CiniOMOOCOO 
°qcM  xf  lx  oo  't  tco^oo  rq_ i o  no >— _ <o  oo^oo o^xf  cm  co  xf  i>*  no  no 
qi  4— T  o” td 4— ” t-T no  ncT on  o' rd cm”  o” 4—i  <— T cm  00  1  o’  xf” cm"  co” u-f  ©  00”  id  o' cm”  rd 
^CMO't^NOOM'timc-HOOOUOCO'OO'OOOOOOMD-HCOOOf'XCi 
7X  <  CM  ’ — 1  CM  VO  co  CM  CM  ’ — 1  CM  CM  co  CM  CO  » — 1  CM  CM  4-h  co  CM  CM  CM  --ft  CM  CM  pm 

C/7‘ 


^4— iCMt^CM'XJON'^'— i<Ot^OOLoO'OOONO'0<N0'OCV)00\OOONO'0-— i 
^OfC'OcOMfOOOKq'+fOO'tOOOfOONO'tTffOrd^roONN 

C/9 


^OO'ONWOtOONOO'OHMuiMi-VO^’^N'HCMOfOOO^ 

NOOO'tNMNCOMD'OtOtMOiCrH'tON'd-rHioOOKONOCJOON 

'to  o  no  o_nq  iqnt  c>  qo  *o^\qqN  on  <xi  xfxj-  nq  co  <o  io  co  no  on 

4— '  vO'  CM  ccT CO  O  N  no  no  xf  ON  td  o  4— ”  On  'O  I'd  On  On”  co  r-T  o  o’  4-h  id  cd  cd  no 

1“""<  CO  ’““I  CV]  r— H  i—4  i—{  1—4  1—4 


o  ^-t- 
lx  00 


CM  NO 
NO  4— 1 


69- 


N)  IO  fO  CC  C  C  C  •  tx  •  xf  •MtsNOOCMON’t 

10)N0  4H(N)-HH  •  O  -4—1  •OOONOtXr-Hr-H'cftX 


On  MO 
4—i  CM 


CM  O 
xf  o 
IX  O 

o'  no” 
69- 


xf  tx 
CM  xf 
co  tx 

ud 


NO  co  O  00  oo  4— i  NO 
xf  no  CM  NO  tx  CM  no 
NO  CM  CM  0_  xf  On  NO 
oo”  On  4-h  t-T 


ON 

tX 

CM 

oo” 


xf 

tx 

oo 


NOONNO4— 1  O  xf  co  co 
4 — 1  NO  NO  NO  no  no  On  co 
NO  no  4 — 1  co  On  tx  50  O1 


ON  co  CM  xf 


ro  xf 


cO  O 

IX  NO 

CO  4-H 

4-h”  cm” 


CMON©©nocon04— icOxf-ONNOOONCorxcONoCMxfOxfcOcooOxfeMxf 
CM  nq  no  tx  co  tx  On  xf  CM  ON  tx  co  xf  i_q  no  xf  o  CM  CO  tx  xf  ,— 1  O  10  4-^  o  co  io 
xfNd'^fNdooNdxftdoN4—icM'NO©cdcdrdodododNd»-Hodco’odoNNdNd 

CM  CM  CM  CM  CO  co  CM  CM  CM  4-h  co  co  CM  co  co  CM  CM  CM  CM  ’ — 1  CM  co  CM  CM  CM  CM  CM  CM 
y^ 


OnOOOOnCOcoOnOKvOCMNOOOOn 
NtO\OOCMOONrHi0  4tON4HrH4tOO\ 


—f  l^  tx  QC 

NO  co  ON  CM 


XfOtX4-H^HOtX4-H 

M-cococoOnOOn-— 1 
T  CM  O  co  4t  Nt  NO  no 


<J  1-H 

M  (/3  ’^ 

03 

2  > 
X  d 

l;  V  4/ 
T  ^  C, 

5  ^  ^ 

T-H  <U  X 


xl  M-OOtxco-H'OOOcoiO'tOMOrHCNKOOMNDOOCNtNO 
£•!  CO  no  00  O  NO  t''*  M"  NO  4-h  CM  no  On  CM  no  no  O  no  co  CO  CXI  00  M"  00  CM 

P-,  !  4—4  4-h  4-h  4 1  4 1  4-h  4 1  4-h  4-H  4 4  Cv)  y— 

u  <«■ 

o  I  _ 


00 


y—4  L/~)  r~H 

NN  t 


CM 


NO 


■On 


■s. 


U-4 

o 


V-  X  , 

U  ^  *  lx  . 

X'ft  y  3  X  q 

£  art  A  5 

55  *3 -S  »  rt 


x1 

H 

i— i 

u 


CO 

4-H 

I 

CM 

4-H 

ON 


— |-  cn 


O 

■H 

bjo 

s  ^  o  c 


U  S 


o 

ft  >3 

Xi  03 


G  X 
nS  O 

uu 


ft 

o ' 
a. 

s f 

>• 


i 

co 

4-H 

ON 


o 

J 


c8 


CO 

T— H 

On 

— i 

cu” 


-ft  X 


cn 

<u 


> 

i/i 

r-* 

crj 

> 


o 

G 

o3 


u 

O 


4-> 

T— < 

u 

C/3 

03 

f— ' 

o3 


cu 

JO 

OQ 


d) 

•  4— < 

CO 


-r  33 

O  -JH 

o 

G  ® 
OJ 


'O 

ft 

o 
'  — 

-X 

u 

o 


-G 

a 

cu 

w 

O 


V) 

o3 

w 


in 

<u 


>»  c 
.tj  cu 
U  PQ 


’"O  2 

t  l~l  X 

■on  bfl' 


co 

ON 

CU 


G  X-C  x  G 


29 


.  bn 

, X*  03 

^  cn 


b£ 

x 

cn 


ft 

a  ^ 
cn  co  m  w 


.2  o 


c3 

§K 

ft  cu 

<U  ft 

a  ft 

c n  H 


NO 

CN1 

CO 


OOOOOOOCv)00  0'OCONOOnOOCOOlocono'-OCX)CMO  _ 
j  O  no  no  O  M*  CM  xl*  NO  O  ON  O  no  co  00  NO  M"  oj  On  NO  ' — 1  xj-  c  co  O  NO  O 

H  I  H-I  CM  M-  ON  NO  NO  NO  NO  CM  oo  NO  <X]  NjX  o  co  ON_  O  NO  CO^  o  ^  co  xl-  ON  XC  O  (XI  M- 

^'\  lo”  On”  t  ^  xf  o”  4—T 1  o  xf”  On”  OO”  o”  >x”  co  CX|”  xj”  NO*  no’  co”  co”  xf”  co”  4-h”  n0”  no  \Q  \Q  u“T  co” 

'  CO¬ 


ON 


NO 


1-^ 

CM 


>  £ 

-C 

D  3 

rt  3 

*3  < 

cl) 

CMCNIx(MNrHON(Oi04tiOOftNCNOiOOOCOcONCOOOiONOx 

NiOr- iCMOnOx  0\xTfrH00OC00\,tON0'XN0'- 1  co  0  NO  xf-  00  CM 

co  4-h  rx)  4-h  4-h  lo  co  4-h  CX)  ^h  CM  4-H  co  CM  CM  4—1  rxi  Cv|  4— '  CXJ  CM  CN]  4-h  , — 1  CM  »— 1  CM 
60- 

4— «  a 
-S  C 

H  J 

ies  and 

enses 

ncipals 

Per  Pupil 

r^ooNOi^t^cxioot^oo 
hONIONOnMO  CM 
<xj  cd  cxi  cd  cd  co*  cxi  cm  cxi 

60- 

NO  CO  CO  CO  NO  O  4-H  10 

O  cq  ON  00  (XI  4-H  cm  NO 
cd  cd  4—1  om  xf'  cd  4—i 

NO  ’ — 1  CM  f>»  00  CM  NO  ON  10 

00  4— 1  co  NO  On  NO  io 

cdidcoxfcdcMcocd 

O 

3 

i-< 

OOOCONNONOON 

NOONOcoM-KO 

no  xf  on  NO  O  no  O  CM  O 

u 

iS  ^  ft  G 

NOOOONxTNOxOO 

no  ft  OO  (O  0  NO  OO  NO 

MOuocoOCMO'tN  | 

•W 

rJ) 

G  <U  3 

CO  co  QQ  N  10  OO  CM  ft  O 

VQ  (O  ft  On  O  N  H  h 

no  CM  X)  NO  xf  Qn  O  tx  nq 

c 

0 

x  0  <; 

CO  CO  CO  NO  xf"  CO  xC  4 — 1  GO 

CO  ft  CM  ft  CM  NO  O  CM  ft 

66H 

O  00’  xf  ft  00  On  On  NO 
(XI  ft  CXJ  CM  CO  ft 

CM  4— 1  NO  xf  tN  NO  ft  NO  rf 

4— 1  xf  CX)  co  CM  4-1  co  CM 

xf 

cd 


oo 


OOcOxJ-ONOLOi-HONOC^ONCOxt-xfcoNOxj-oOOONONOONCMONt^NONONO 

NO  xj*  (M  h-iOOnCM-— 'XfNONONONOcONOCNl4 — i  4H  o  00  4 — lOMCOxfOO  NO  xf 
co  On  NO  NO  NO  CO  ft  On  O  M  K  10  in  tx  ON  (O  N2  xf  rH  CM  O  O  xf  (NJ  Xf  xf  c  'M 

uo” no  00” xf-” \o” no  cm”  rC td  td  no’  no  cm” tC 00  nO  jtxT On” xf-  co” 00  td  id  id  00”  id  00 

.  --<  '  ,  1  .  1  t 


On 
ON 
cxj 
i-o 
y t 


NO 


NO 


-X  -d 

cu  -G 

a  o 
°‘C 
H  > 


&  i 

bn  ! 

2  ! 

v 

r* 

< 


L- 
O 
Of 
■4— * 

c n 
O 

U 


ci 


PART  III. 

WHAT  OUGHT  TO  BE  DONE? 

Increase  Income  or  Reduce  Expenditures 

Either  some  means  must  be  found  for  increasing  the  income 
or  the  expenditures  must  be  reduced.  Bills  now  pending  before 
the  State  Legislature  may  possibly  provide  a  larger  income  from 
tuition  than  can  be  figured  on  in  the  absence  of  such  legislation. 
As  long*  as  parents  are  obliged  to  pay  the  tuition  the  income 
from  this  source  is  not  apt  to  exceed  the  estimate  given  above. 
One  other  conceivable  way  of  securing  an  increase  in  the  income 
will  be  by  asking  the  electors  of  the  district  to  allow  the  Board 
to  go  beyond  the  one  and  three-fourths  per  cent  now  permitted. 
But  at  a  time  when  taxpayers  are  groaning  under  the  high  cost 
of  living,  they  could  hardly  be  expected  to  vote  for  an  increase 
of  the  taxing  burden  of  which  they  were  complaining  even  before 
the  present  advance  in  prices.  Hence,  expenditures  must  be  re¬ 
duced  by  at  least  $24,000.00.  Where  can  the  reduction  be  made 
without  reducing  the  efficiency  of  the  school  system? 


High  Cost  of  Instruction 

Table  III.  showed  that  while  Peoria  ranked  fourth  as  to  the 
total  cost  per  pupil,  the  cost  per  pupil  for  instruction  was  greater 
in  Peoria  than  in  any  of  the  other  systems,  greater  by  $2.33  than 
that  of  the  city  second  in  rank.  Peoria  ranks  fourth  as  to  salaries 
and  expenses  of  supervisors,  third  as  to  salaries  and  expenses  of 
principals,  first  as  to  salaries  of  teachers.  In  the  table  referred 
to  special  schools  are  included  under  the  head  of  elementary 
schools  and  industrial  schools  under  secondary  schools.  Tables 
VIII  and  IX  shows  costs  for  elementary  schools  and  for  secondary 
schools.  Unfortunately  the  reports  of  some  of  the  cities  in 
the  list  did  not  show  distributions,  merely  lumping  the  expendi¬ 
tures  for  both  classes  of  schools  as  shown  in  Table  VII.  It  will 
be  observed  that  Peoria  ranks  first  as  to  total  cost  per  pupil  and 
as  to  cost  of  instruction  per  pupil  in  the  elementary  schools.  The 
cost  per  pupil  for  teachers’  salaries  in  Peoria  was  $29.01  in  the 
elementary  schools,  $1.28  more  than  in  the  case  of  Des  Moines, 
which  city  ranks  second.  Peoria’s  rank  as  to  cost  per  pupil  for 
teachers’  salaries  in  the  secondary  schools  is  third;  as  to  total  cost 
per  pupil  it  is  second. 


30 


/ 


Teachers’  Salaries 

High  cost  of  instruction  may  be  due  either  to  high  salaries  for 
teachers,  or  to  a  large  number  of  teachers  in  proportion  to  the  num¬ 
ber  of  pupils,  or  to  a  combination  of  both  of  these  factors.  The 
attempt  was  made  to  secure  the  salary  schedules  obtaining  in  the 
twenty-eight  school  systems  under  consideration,  but  it  was  im¬ 
possible  to  secure  the  same  from  more  than  a  few  cities.  This 
made  a  real  study  of  the  salary  situation  impossible.  Hence  a  dif¬ 
ferent  expedient  had  to  be  resorted  to.  Table  X,  shows  the  num¬ 
ber  of  pupils  per  teacher,  and  the  average  salaries  paid,  in  the  ele¬ 
mentary  schools,  and  Table  XI,  corresponding  data  for  the  secon¬ 
dary  schools  of  the  twenty-eight  schools  systems  under  consider¬ 
ation.  Peoria  ranks  fourth  as  to  small  classes,  and  third  as  to 
salaries  paid,  in  the  elementary  schools.  In  other  words,  the  sal¬ 
aries  are  comparatively  high,  and  at  the  same  time  the  number  of 
teachers  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  pupils  is  large.  The  very 
small  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  and  the  small  average  salary  in 
the  elementary  schools  of  Davenport  indicates  that  cadet  teachers 
are  included.  For  the  minimum  salary  in  the  grades  at  Daven¬ 
port  is  $600.00  per  year,  while  the  maximum  is  $850.00.  The  num¬ 
ber  of  pupils  per  teacher  in  the  secondary  schools  of  Peoria  is 
smaller  than  in  any  one  of  the  other  cities.  At  the  same  time  Peoria 
ranks  sixth  as  to  salaries  paid. 


It  is  evident  from  an  analysis  of  the  above  tables  and  of  Dia¬ 
grams  VII.  and  VIII.,  showing  the  number  of  pupils  per  teacher 
in  the  elementary  schools  and  the  secondary  schools,  that  classes 
^are  very  much  smaller  in  the  schools  of  Peoria  than  they  are  in 
most  other  cities.*  There  is  no  valid  reason  for  assuming  that  classes 


*The  excessively  large  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  in  the  case 
of  Evansville  is  evidently  incorrect,  although  based  on  data  pub¬ 
lished  in  the  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Education  for  1914. 
The  average  daily  attendance  is  there  reported  as  1378  while  the 
enrollment  is  reported  as  1045.  Presumably  these  two  figures  need 
to  be  transposed.  On  this  assumption  the  number  of  pupils  per 
teacher  was  23.8  instead  of  31.3.  Point  A  in  Diagram  VIII.  indicates 
this  presumably  correct  number.  This  would  place  Evansville  in 
rank  between  Flint  and  DesMoines.  If  the  above  assumption  is 
correct  the  costs  per  pupil  for  Evansville  in  Table  III.  need  to  be  re¬ 
vised.  The  average  daily  attendance  for  all  schools  was  probably 
7582  instead  of  7915  as  given  in  the  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of 
Education.  If  so,  the  cost  per  pupil  was  $42.55  instead  of  $40.76  as 
shown  in  Table  III. 


31 


> 

4) 

X 

cd 

H 


g 

o 

cu 

0- 


X 

c 

aj 

w 

g 

cs 

■©£ 

g 

4 

■a 

a 


•o c 

c 


o 

c 

•  —  . 

-  vO 

X  ' — 1 

O  2 

o  . 

J3  VO 
o  — 

x  ON 


g 

cs 

4H 

c 

4 

£ 

4 

4 

D 


c 

o 

4H 

4 


X 

4 


g 

0) 

_c 


"3 

C 

a 


X 

O 

o 


u 

4 

a 

■a 

c 

« 

*— 

x 

O 

o 

"3 

*— 

o 

H 


o 

e- 


c 

o-a  g 

o  c  o 

ai  G  C 

l*  U) 
n  ^  C 

a  x  ^ 

£■  5  c. 

<D 


X 

g: 

o 

o 

JO 


x  g 
-  ^ 
*->  G.G 
X  G  •*-> 

O'  0)  o 

H 


a 

a 

g 

a; 

G 


G 

< 


G 

G 

a 

u 

o 

a. 


a 

< 


o 

.e 

o 

rt 

o 


X 

o 


a5 

03 


G 

G 

G 

i-( 

4 

G 


$21.96 

23.51 
|  29.59 

O  00  VO 

>o  t'v  vq 
d  id  oo 

CM  CM  CM 

;  CM 

•  r-H 

•  co 

33.30 

35.66 

25.96 

27.52 

35.29 

34.10 

•  rH  C\J 

•  cm.  »q 

.  cd  d 

•  co  CM 

28.98 

$292,395  j 

.  1 

176,527  j 
|  120,419 

. 

•  278,613 

184,153 

187,256 

.  1 

147,093 

_ 

219,649 

277.812 

145,042 

223,469 

1 

. .  1 

243  040 

227,169 

209,218  | 

.  oo 

•  On 

;  o  oo 
.  rvj  co" 

• 

•  t— <  t-H 

M-  On 

O  "'cb  On 

co  O 

G’OOKgCOvJ- 

co  On 

VO  O  N 

o 

CO 

vo  VO 

XK  tN 

co  co 

CO  O0  On  CO  00  Vd 

■cf  VO 

co  O0  VO 

*— < 

r— H 

CM  CM  t— 1 

cd  i—i 

r— H 

y j- 

•c 

G 

c3 


O  X 


x  rt 
x  a;  a 
o  x  •— 

—  c  o 

G  o  o 


G 

G 

G 

g 

o 

G 


vO 

On 


m- 

OJ 

On 

m- 


On 

H 

VO 

d" 

IO 

CM 

W- 


•  o 

CO  • 

•  CM 

oo 

co 

CNl 

O 

vo 

1^ 

vo 

t-H 

ON 

•  CM 

t-H 

CO 

•  GO 

On  • 

•  ON 

On 

VO 

co 

t-H 

vo 

VO 

co 

vo 

vo 

VO 

•  VO 

co 

H 

• 

• 

•  t-H 

CM 

r-H 

ON 

t-H 

n- 

GO 

Tf 

CO 

CO 

co 

.  ^ 

VO 

00 

^  M" 

CM  • 

•  id 

VO 

VO 

1^ 

vo 

VO 

-VO 

VO 

cm' 

•  co 

o 

OO 

r-H 

t-H 

t-H 

•  OJ 

t— H 

•  W 

CM  CO 

co  VO 

VO 

vo 

t'v 

cd 

GO 

CO 

GO 

On 

CO  CO 

On 

•  co 

CM  ON 

VO 

r-H 

CO 

O 

CO 

CM 

On 

M-  CM  O 

VO 

LO 

•  On 

d  vo 

1^  CM 

r-H 

1^ 

id 

VO 

vo 

On 

- - - 

d 

On  co  cd 

t'v. 

d 

•  T— H 

Gl  CNJ 

OJ  Ol 

CM 

CM 

▼— 1 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

t-H  t-H  ^\J 

OJ 

CM 

O  O  «— I 

O  H  co 

O  CV1  !>. 
co"  O  H 


NGOrHOVO'trH't'tCO 
O\KrC0CTtlN'OrPO(Vl 
CO  VO  CM  CM  lo  co  00  On  CM  CO 

i  o"  OC  t-h  CM  On  vo  id  cd  "  d 
cf  ON  O  tN  (N)  >Ci  vo  vo  M 
’ — i  i— i  co  CM  ’ — 1  ’ — 1  r— <  ’— i  i- H 


K  O  OO  CM  O  O  On  O  co 
ONOtsOvocovOKvcno 
vo  On  >— «  00  On  C  O  vo  On  CM 

VO  VO  ON  o'  CM*  CM  00  00  cd'  d 
NCM'-ivOONC)iO00\O 
i-H  CM  i— <  i-H  CM  i— '  t-H  ,-H 


CO  CO 


OnCON 
CO  O  H 
H  O  00  tq 

i— r  o  cm’  vo 

t— I  o  CO  vo 
t— i  CM  T~l  r~' 


CM 

H 

CO 

OJ 


ON 

On 

y^ 


•  OJ  OO  OJ  CO  CM  H-  O 
■  vo  H  VO  00  On  VO  cq 

•  O  VQ 

•  O  VO 

•  1— 1 1>*  -+ 
;t^oo 

.  VO 
•  OJ 

•  On  -CC  On 
•OH’ — < 

•  O  CM  Tf  vo  • 

•  t-H  I  t — 1  ’ — 1  t 

•  oi  cd  cd  cd  cm*  cm*  oi 

•  cd  oi 

•  oi  d  cd 

I  cd  id  cd 

•  d  oi  cd  d 

*4 

o 

*  1 
4> 

>  1 
y= 

i 

V 

J-:  a’C  ^ 

os  x  a  £ 

CO  o  ^ 

« 

j~j 

c 

G 

4 

G 

> 

Tj  4h  tn  O 

> 

GOG 
rt  C  o  4 

re  r\ 

o 

•  o 

OC 

co 

OJ 

vo 

H 

OJ 

•  VC 

CO 

•  H 

CO 

vo 

•  o* 

•  VO 

o 

o 

o 

vo 

o 

OJ 

VO 

•  o 

CM 

H 

OJ 

CM 

CO 

•  o 

CO 

•  vo 

t-H 

•  VO 

•  to. 

On 

H 

ON 

o 

T— H 

o 

, — i 

VO 

: 

t-H 

cq 

o 

VO 

°°- 

CO 

•  OO 

vo 

•  cq 

iq 

On 

•  o. 

•  oo 

H 

CM 

vo 

1^ 

cq 

o 

tq 

vd 

•  co" 

o" 

oi 

On" 

oo" 

vd 

•  id 

cm" 

•  rd 

t-H 

vd 

:  oj" 

•”  oo” 

rd 

t-H 

ON 

vd 

cm" 

NO 

co" 

dJ 

•  t-H 

t-H 

O) 

VO 

cm 

1 — 1 

l-1 

.•  - - 1 

. . — i 

CO 

t— H 

co 

OJ 

OJ 

OJ 

t— H 

CM 

OJ 

yr 


x  a>.G 
<u  x  ^ 

sgs 

G  G  G 
G  x  3 
■j,  (V  w 


t,  r 
4  — 

.g  a 


u  —•  0) 
O  n5  C  o 
G  g  >  *0  <l>  a 

c3G\r« 

^ -g 
^  °  « 


ON  T— 1  VO  1—1  OJ  VO  1— * 

On  OJ  co  iq  H  VO  H 

t-H  t-H  t-H 

ee- 

/ . 

•  ■  oo 
;  ;  00 

00  O  cvj 
h  to.  vq 

it  ts  On  M  O  • 

H  vo  co  co  ; 

1—4  t-H  CO  T— l 

o  O  1— 1  1—1  O  O  o 

•  •  1^ 

CO  On  1—1 

vo  CM  Lo  vo  CM  CM 

VO  O  1-H  vo  VO  o 

•  •  OJ 

co  vO  vo 

On  i — 1  fv.  i— <  H  co 

if  On  vo  io  O]  O  cq 

rq  OJ  H 

vo  CM^  On  CO  CO  H 

N  d  K  On  it  vf  On 

On  co"  co 

co  vo  co  cd  t-h  vc 

yt 

rvj  hh 

lo  (N1  CO  OO 
O  On  H 


OJ 

T— H 

co 

co" 


KOONVOOi-NrHONfOVONON-HrtOOOO'OCM 
CKCCMcOM-cOCMM-rH--HONON  00‘t-h  CM  O  VO  00  VO 
vo  O  O  vt-  rH  rH  vq  i  r,  ON  t>.  On  i-O  tqvo  CM  1  Oh  00  CO  VO 

rd o-"  in  co  c’  i>T  vd  vo  vo” m-  o'  vo  t>T >o  vd  oo  co" cm" vo"  vo" 


co  O  On  O 
•o  o  vo  o 
t>.  o  CM  ^ 

m-  vd  vo"  cd 


NcoOOO 
vo  CO  K  On  On 
CM  vo  CM  VO 

no"  m*"  co*  vo*  rd 


ON 

o 

cd 


VO 


h 

CJ 


tfl 

<u 


CO 

I 

CM 

ON 


aj 


i 

co 


S°  S 

^  cd  cd 


o 

4-1 

bJO 


.2  0\ 
0 

-4  s _ / 

o 

J  <u 


o  •; 


a 


.0  v 

>  >■  XI 

o  o  o 

UQQ 


^  !>* 
CO  £ 

r-* 

X  co 

Cj  > 

ww 


<u 

r~* 

>> 

a5 

> 


G  u 
—  O 
tG 


O 

O 

N 

cd 

r“< 

£ 

cd 


u 

c n 
cd 

(n 


<v  <v 

c75c/5 


C/5 

cd 

w 


C/5 

a; 


o 


>> 


’O  „  - 


cti  a5  , 


5 

i— 

O 


4) 


U 


03 

G 

o 

<4-. 

G5 

O 


a, 

<u 

X 

O 


oj 


4-4  n_)  —  1 

kTHoq  w  ^ 

^  U  (-M  o:  vp  o 
o3  b/3  bJO-r; 

G  X-C  C  C  h 


bfl  be 


G  G 


I 

co 


aj 

4-4 

G 

o3 

K 

<y 

G 


oJ  ^ 

a^  GP 
Oh  O 


;  V  d  03  -2  o  a  Ph  G  «  O  d 

4PnP4P^cr!cncncricoc/}cr)cr!HHK> 


<v 

o, 

X 

-G> 

X 

O 

U 

aj 

be 

o5 

G 

O 

> 

< 


CO 

vo 

cd 

CM 

y* 

X 

rt 

ts 

vo 

i 

VO 

T— H 

ON 


Oh 

r-* 

*-> 

Oh 

G 

43 

Oh 

4-4 

X 

o 

u 


05 


32 


X 


0) 


-fi 

C3 

H 


ce 


u 

O 

03 

3m 


O 

o 

4= 

o 

x 


'0£ 

c 


c 

V 

Ji¬ 

ll 


13 

> 


x 

3 


o 

<u 


vO 

i— i 

Ov 


x  • 
—  tn 
O  H 
O  ov 

_3  *— I 

o 

*  X 

*.2 

3  o 
TJ 

C  U 

o  v 

o  X 
<U  " 
x  o 


43  13 

j:  > 

■“  ie 


c  >» 


=  s 

.2  S 


13 

?  TJ 


£  C 


x 

c 


3 


x 

O 

O 


a 

3 

a 


u 

<u 

a 


a! 


a 

3 

ft 

Ih 

01 

Oh 


CM 

•  £""*)  t-H  • 

•  CO  CO  M-  • 

•  o 

•  VO  VO  M- 

.  vo  • 

•  CM  O 

00 

•  r-H  CM 

•  i-H  VO  1— 1 

:  ^ 

•  CM  CM  vq 

:  °) 

•t-'Y  Ov 

LO 

3  vd  3 

•  CM  vd  3 

3  M- 

3  rd  cd  td 

•  M-  3 

3  o  O 

vo 

.  VO  vo  . 

•  VO  VO  Tf"  • 

• 

•XNvf- 

.  vo  • 

•  vo  VO 

C/O- 

•  * 

* 

*  * 

O 


£ 

<3 


1 

c 

VO 

.  00  l—l  • 

•  vo  vo 

.  ov 

o 

$ 

CO 

.  Ov  Ov  • 

•  VO  co  O 

.  VO  00 

+J 

13 

a 

vd 

3  CM  i—i  3 

•  vo  CM  i— • 

cd  i-H 

- 

U 

•  • 

• 

Ifl 

C/3 

<D 

<D 

Pu 

tfl  r~ 

44  n 


O 

o 

•O 


a 

3 

C/3 


®  s 


a 

3 

a 


O  c/3 
C/l  h 
-  43 

CS  C3 
13 


Sh 

13 

CU 


Cl 

CO 


a 

<j 


G  O  c/3 

CO  IS 
CO  13  Q, 

13  CO -t? 

O  o 

13  C 

&  ! 


a 

3 

a 


in 

13 

PU 


ri  x  a 
CO  o 


a 

<3 


T3  <4-4 

G  O 
«  co 
CO  13 
O  CO 

a 


a 

3 

a 


iO  CM 
vo 


h-  o 

LQ 


t-H 

vo 

.  M" 

vo 

. 

vo 

t-H 

co 

CM 

.  VO 

•  r- H 

M* 

CO 

•  •  M" 

Ov 

CM 

•  vO 

O 

•  co 

Ov 

o  • 

VO 

co 

co 

• 

:  vo 

00 

co 

:  :  °o 

o 

cq 

•vo 

i— i 

‘  T - 1 

CO 

cm  ; 

cq 

Iq 

o. 

cq 

3 

3  oo 

CM 

CO 

.  . Ln 

K 

vo" 

3  cm" 

rU  3 

3  <n" 

cm" 

CM  3 

cd 

vo" 

cd 

id' 

•  r-H 

•  o 

co" 

o" 

•  •  o' 

co" 

co 

.  vo 

CM  • 

•  00 

M" 

vo  . 

vo 

vO 

00 

co 

•  vo 

vo 

vo 

•  •  VO 

vO 

• 

I 


KCNfOCOOv 
M"  M"  vo  M"  vO  vo 
co  c\i  ’  cm  co  r-3 


CO  CO 

00  o 


oo  o 

M- t'x 


co  CM 


> 
(h 
13  13 

a  n 

rt  x  3 

co  03  co 


Ih 

13 

PU 


u 

as 


a 

<3 


I_  CO  ,  >, 

43  03  in  HP  •  o 

JO  a  13  cl  O  C3 
H  3  J*  -O  4J  J3 

cm  fl  bn  a  ^ 
O  a$ 


T3 

C 

C8 


x 

O 

o 


O 

H 


H 


U 


o 

o 

1-0 


m- 


VO 

vo 

o 


CM 


00 

vd 

vo 


co 

r>. 


CM 


t—H 

.  O 

CO  • 

•  CM 

LO 

co 

• 

co 

00 

00 

O 

Ov 

t-H 

O 

vO 

O 

CO 

O 

CO 

co 

CM 

.  co 

vo  • 

•  T— H 

CM 

VO 

• 

Cvj 

o 

LO 

M" 

CM 

CO 

T-H 

O 

Ov 

Ov 

o 

O 

co 

Ov 

O 

.  co 

Ov  • 

•  oo 

OO 

M- 

• 

Ov 

vo 

O 

LO 

M- 

CM 

r-H 

Ov 

VO 

co 

co 

t-H 

3  CO 

.  00 

r-H 

r-H 

3 

CM 

t—H 

•e 

CM 

co 

H- 

t—H 

CM 

l-1 

M" 

cd' 

09- 

• 

• 

VO 

.  co 

O  co 

00  o 

CO 

VO  r-H 

vo 

Ov 

Ov 

t-H 

t-H 

VO 

t—H 

CM 

vo 

o 

M" 

00 

■ — ■ 

t-H 

. 

co  CO 

CO  co 

co 

00  00 

00 

M" 

00 

CO 

00 

t—H 

t—H 

r-H 

CO 

t-'Y 

vO 

Ov 

00 

co 

CM 

id 

3  oo 

Or  1— 1 

M-  CM 

Ov' 

i-H  OV 

vd 

vd 

OO 

00 

Ov 

00 

rd 

t-H 

vd 

vd 

LO 

M- 

oo 

M" 

O 

vo 

•  M- 

M-  vo 

M"  to 

of 

H-  CM 

vo 

vo 

M" 

VO 

co 

co 

vo 

vo 

M" 

vo 

CO 

co 

M- 

Ov 

90- 

M* 

VO’— it^t^t^vOvOcMOOOv 
(OIOloio^I-KOOkOVO 

m;  vq vor^r-^cM 'O  vo  o  vq 
~d  cd  VOld'O'Coo  I'd  rtV  vo" 
vo  CM  M"  CM  VO  co  vo  CM  vo  vo 


’-^VOCMCM’— 't^.CMvovO'ct- 
OCOCOVOOOOOVOVO^OO 

cqiqcM  oi_  -t  vo  vo  oo  cm  tq 
id  ccT  c'  d  cm"  o'  CM~  H-  cd  co" 

lO  1^  CO  «0  VO  -f-  CM  vr,  LO  '■+ 


CM  O  VO 
O  O  CM  M- 
O  ’M'  00 

cm  vcT  cm"  vo" 

Tf\j-lOio 


t—H 

CO 

.  00  O  VO  Ov  VO  VO  CM 
•  co  O  VO  vo  ih  Os  CM 

.  oo  oo 

•  M"  LO 

.  co  vq  oo 

•  Tf  LO  LO 

•  LO 

cd 

99^ 

3  m-  id  m-  cd  cd  c\i  evi 

;  rd  id 

3  cd  vd  cd 

3  cd 

Ov  o 

t— I  r-H  CM 

O  cd  M" 


i  O  i-O  -t-  co  M- 
OV  CM  VO 

i-3  cd  cd  cm'  cd 


o 

O  O  Ov  vo  VO  M*  00 

O  i—i 

o 

OOHCONOvifl 

vo  M" 

00 

Ov  vo  CM  CO  t-h  CM  O 

OO  w 

vo 

d  CM  rt  o  d  CV)  cd 

CM 

90 

t-H 

•  •  On  y~~^  •  •  • 

•  Tf 

•  •  cm  •  :  *. 

•  CM 

•  •  •  •  • 

•  •  99- 

•  r-H 

KOOO 

vo  vo  co 

OON 

•d*  vo"  CM 


co 

00 

o 


OOOVVOOOOOO 
voOl— IM-Oi— lOtON 

oo  cqov^tq  vo©  ©uq 
fd  cd  M-  -M^i— I  CO  VO  co  Tf" 


vo 

Ov 


CO 


t—h  vo  00 

M-  Ov  ^ 
Y— 3  •  M- 


o 


■M* 

00 


•  •  •  •  On  • 

•  .  •  CO  • 

•  •  •  •  I^Y  VO 

•  .  ■  LO  • 

:  :  :  :  ©  ®  : 

:  :  :  : 

•  •  •  •  CM  CM  • 

•  .  .  i — i 

•  •  •  *  C/9- 

VO  Ov  PM 

hp  o\ 
vq  ©H; 

r-H  r-H  CO 


•  •  o 

•  •  • 

•  •  CM 

•  •  o 

•  •  • 

•  •  00 

:  :  vo 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

:  :^o  :  :  ; 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

•  •  T— H  •  •  • 

•  •  •  •  • 

r^ot^ovCMvooot^oooor^coOvcot^oooOvJ^ 

1— lOOt^CMt^C^CMCMVOM-VOM-t^r— 'OVi— ivOOnvO 
r-H  vo  ov  oo  cqt>*  cq  i^  oo  00  vqi— i  i— 1 M^CM  co  ’— 1  Ov 

1— I  CM  1— 1  1”H I  l—l  r-H  rH  1— 1  1—1  r-H 


O'tNOO 
tN-HCOVO'O 
Q\  Ov  co  CO  CM 


cti 


CO  _  w 


CO 

1— I 

cn  Ov 

3C 


Ih  U 

P  o 


co  CM 
C  ON 


o 

i—l  <v 


CU  o 

O  -P 

*H  Jo  0 

Pi  rt  as 

emu 


b/3 


in 


> 


03 


-O 


u 


03 
03  1^3 

rrt  «<H 


X 

03 


.0  03 

>  X 
o  c3 

UP 


X  «— 1 
03  *h 

pa 


X  CCS 

nS  J* 

WW 


C  u 
m  o 


crj 


in 

ct 

w 


o-g 
b  o 

PP  03 


03 


X) 

U 

O 


r^ 

03 

o 


CX 

03 

X 

o 


as 

w> 


M- 


i 

co 


Ov 


03 


aS 


be 

aS 


'O  ^  . 

EP  TP  OP 

H-*  a->  —7-!  ■ort 

as  y  be  be*r 

5  S-S.S.S  S  £ 

S.2 


aS 


aS 
v  .TP 
flj  rC 

a.y 

o 


V>  -d  y  ^  d  u  as  as  .M  o  aa3.lur(J> 

^pp3Ummmrn(7ic^cocr!cocr)cnHH!> 


o 


CO 


00 

vo 

«e- 


CU 

a 


1m 

03 

a 


X 


X 

O 

o 


03 

be 

aS 

Sm 

03 

> 

< 


X 

a! 


VO 


i 

vn 


Ov 


a 

;p 

a 


Sm 

03 

Oh 


X 

O 

u 


as 


33 


Table  X. 


Number  of  pupils  per  teacher,  and  average  salaries  paid  to  teachers  in  the  elemen- 
tary  schools  of  Peoria  and  twenty-five  other  cities,  1915-1916. 


CITY 

Number  of 
teachers  in 
elemen¬ 
tary 
schools 

Average 

daily 

attendance 

Number 
of  pupils 
per 

teacher  in 
elemen¬ 
tary 
schools 

Salaries 

Average 

salaries 

Akron  . 

371 

13,312 

35.9 

$254,649 

$686.39 

Bay  City . 

Canton . 

227 

7,507 

33.0 

145,397 

640.52 

Covington  . 

140 

4,070 

29.1 

98,578 

704.13 

Davenport  . 

249 

5,609 

22.5 

151,231 

607.35 

Des  Moines  . 

462 

13  426 

29.1 

372,280 

805.80 

Duluth  (1912-13).. 

349 

10,130 

29.0 

229,546 

657.72 

East  St.  Louis _ 

216 

7,144 

33.1 

155,374 

719.32 

Evansville  (’13-14) 

247 

6,537 

26.4 

157,861 

639.11 

Flint  . 

231 

6,521 

28.2 

113,934 

493.22 

Fort  Wayne  . 

238 

5,949 

25.0 

161,204 

677.33 

Kalamazoo  . 

(a) 188 

4,713 

25.1 

124,323 

661.29 

Kansas  City . 

342 

10  916 

31.9 

Lincoln  . 

249 

6,597 

26.5 

i  76,597 

709.22 

Peoria  . 

304 

7  790 

25.6*, 

.  225,963 

743.30, 

Racine  . 

178 

5,587 

31.4 

119,178 

669.54 

Rockford  . 

220 

6,211 

28.2 

150,802 

685.46 

St.  Joseph  . 

310 

8,121 

26.2 

202,956 

654.70 

Saginaw,  East  Side 

(1914-15)  . 

113 

3,378 

29.9 

66,121 

585.14 

Saginaw,  West  Sidel  77 

2,868 

37.2 

38,066 

494.37 

Sioux  City . 

242 

6,886 

28.4 

158,579 

655.29 

South  Bend  . 

259 

6,662 

25.7 

(b)  183  956 

710.25 

Springfield,  Ill. 

(1914-15)  . 

221 

6,433 

29.1 

164,253 

743.23 

Springfield,  O . 

193 

6,267 

32.4 

130,028 

676.86 

Superior  (1914-15) 

174 

5,098 

29.3 

116,272 

668.23 

Terre  Haute  . 

296 

8,276 

28.0 

200.000 

|  754.72 

Topeka  . 

190 

5,696 

30.0 

132,876 

699.35 

Wichita  . 

233 

7,090 

30.4 

165,747 

t  7 

711.36 

Averages . 

1 

|  29.1 

|  674.72 

(a)  Teachers  in  elementary  schools,  173;  in  secondary  schools,  34; 
elementary  and  secondary,  30. 

(b)  $183,956  for  salaries  of  elementary  teachers  includes  $7,587  for  sum¬ 
mer  school,  and  $8,197  for  institute  fees. 


34 


b 

© 

r-l 

CD 

t- 

<N 

ia 

O 

Oi 

<N 

O 

rH 

rH 

rH 

CO 

OS 

© 

TtJ 

OS 

© 

rH 

os 

d 

in 

d 

d 

d 

CD 

CD 

CD* 

00 

00 

oo’ 

00 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

o 

o 

rH 

1— 1 

oi 

CO 

CO 

d 

t- 

cs 

CI 

<N 

<N 

<M 

<N 

<N 

<M 

Cl 

<N 

Dl 

<N 

IM 

(M 

Ol 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

& 

y. 


'O 

•rH 

Xfl 


bC 

Zfj. 


o 

EH 


,a 

o 


-M 

•»-<  rj3 

O  ~ 

0> 


M 


m 

0) 


<D 

a 

•rH 

m 

d 

m 

rH 

© 

be 

fl 

•pH 

a 

o 

+-> 

<X> 

4-> 

a 

o 

p 

a 

a 

•rH 

o 

M 

S-l 

a 

XJ1 

S-( 

ba 

ci 

Cj 

Oa 

a 

a 

ac 

a 

M 

m 

O 

H 

Z/2 

35 


Diagram  VII. — Number  of  pupils  per  teacher  in  the  elementary  schools  of  Peoria  and  twenty-five  other 
cities.  (Bay  City  omitted,  as  data  for  recent  years  were  not  available.) 


Table  XI 


\ 


Number  of  pupils  per  teacher,  and  average  salaries  paid  to  teachers  in  the  secon¬ 
dary  schools  of  Peoria,  and  twenty-five  other  cities,  1915-1916. 


CITY 

Number 

of 

teachers 

in 

secondary 

schools 

% 

Average 

daily 

attend¬ 

ance 

Number  of 
pupils  per 
teacher  in 
secondary 
schools 

Salaries 

Average 

salaries 

Akron  . 

111 

2056 

18.5 

$117,500 

$1058.56 

Bay  City . 

Canton  . 

42 

1117 

26.6 

54,436 

1296.10 

Covington  . 

22 

500 

22.7 

23.651 

1075.05 

Davenport  . 

48 

907 

18.9 

46,557 

969.94 

Des  Moines . 

119 

2879 

24.2 

127,757 

1073.59 

Duluth  (T2-T3) . . . 

63 

1322 

22.0 

69,147 

1097.57 

East  St.  Louis.... 

37 

776 

21.0 

38  276 

1034.49 

Evansville  (T3-T4) 

44 

1378 

31.3 

57,686 

1311.05 

Flint  . 

31 

727 

23.5 

21,672 

699.10 

Fort  Wayne . 

45 

820 

18.2 

54,008 

1200.18 

Kalamazoo  . 1(a)  49 

850  | 

17.3  ] 

55,669 

1136.10 

Kansas  City . 

73 

1648 

22  6 

Lincoln  . 

61 

1167 

19.1 

. 

57,001 

934.44 

Peoria  . . 

67 

1143 

17.  W 

*  73,536 

1097.55_ 

Racine  . 

34 

779 

22.9 

30,232 

889.18 

Rockford  . 

62 

1413 

22.8 

55,262 

891.32 

St.  Joseph . 

68 

1297 

19.1 

62,481 

918.84 

Saganaw,  East  Side] 

(T4-T5)  . 

1  43 

735 

17.1 

27,950 

650.00 

Saginaw,  West  Side 

15 

368 

24.5 

22,562 

902.48 

Sioux  City . 

60 

1199 

20.0 

54,865 

914.42 

South  Bend . 

49 

957 

19.5 

(b)  53  275 

1087.24 

Springfield,  Ill. 

(T4-T5)  . 

41 

796 

19.4 

43,784 

1067.90 

Springfield.  O . 

37 

972 

26.2 

40,450 

1093.24 

Superior  (T4-T5).. 

41 

882 

21.5 

38,181 

931.24 

Terre  Haute . 

65 

1337 

20.6 

46,400 

928.00 

Topeka  . 

54 

1360 

25.2 

52,821 

978.17 

Wichita  . 

|  56 

|  1256 

22.4 

55,746 

995.46 

Averages  . 

r  . 

21.6 

|  $1008.89 

(a)  Teachers  in  elementary  schools,  173;  in  secondary  schools,  34; 
elementary  and  secondarj^  30. 

(b)  $53,275  for  salaries  of  secondary  school  teachers  includes  $2,818 
for  summer  school  and  $3,079  for  institute  fees. 


36 


© 

t> 


OS  CO 
^  b-  GO 

b  ri  rl 


IQ  CS 

00  GO 


rH 

tH 

lO 

O 

■  co 

o 

ID 

© 

rH 

CO 

1- 

tf> 

05 

ID 

CI 

id 

(M 

CI 

CO 

CO 

d> 

d 

05 

05 

O 

d 

rH 

rH 

ci 

ci 

ci 

ci 

ci 

ci 

05 

rH 

rH 

id 

co 

CO 

rH 

rH 

rH 

i— 1 

rH 

CI 

Cl 

CI 

CI 

ci 

.  VI 

CI 

CI 

CI 

CI 

CI 

CI 

CI 

CI 

CI 

CO 

02 

02 

s 

2 

55 

w 

55 

-4-> 

| — | 

•pH 

P 

4- 1 

. 

in 

C3 

0) 

HH 

rr+ 

<D 

o 

72 

02 

0 

d 

H 

o 

o 

N 

d 

d 

4-i 

?h 

O 

rP 

02 

V 

P 

CD 

rr\ 

>> 

4-> 

•rH 

4-> 

P 

d 

HH 

fa 

fa 

p 

d 

4-> 

4-> 

•rH 

a 

p 

0 

CO 

72 

02 

P 

•rH 

£ 

d 

rH 

02 

02 

a 

d 

d 

P 

£ 

rH 

Ph 

rH 

O 

72 

p 

rH 

<P 

&J3 

rH 

O 

fa 

O 

•rH 

.p 

72 

d 

72 

H-> 

to 

rH 

O 

0) 

O 

£ 

d 

d 

cp 

OX) 

P 

d 

•rH 

p 

•rH 

c 

d 

P 

o 

r-( 

<D 

O 

o 

o 

r~] 

rH 

•+H 

X 

rH 

CD 

rH 

+-> 

rH 

o> 

+-> 

^p 

•rH 

rP 

01 

•rH 

«H 

Js) 

d 

.9 

fa 

02 

0 

-4-j 

72 

P 

o 

o 

H  . 

HH 

CX) 

P 

5l 

r— I 

P 

w 

rH 

o 

fa 

rH 

MS 

K* 

d 

Q 

fa 

02 

a 

•rH 

rH 

Ch 

m 

P 

o 

m 

r- 1 

O 

•  rH 

m 

U 

02 

H 

d 

fa 

a 

r-. 

02 

p 

n 

O 

•rH 

P 

d 

fa 

K* 

O 

O 

O 

O 

« 

*0 

d 

W 

p 

s 

in 

<D 

Q 

So 

c3 

02 

p. 

O 

H 

•rH 

?H 

ft 

02 

p 

d 

O 

d 

> 

fa 

37 


Diagram  VIII. — Number  of  pupils  per  teacher  in  the  secondary  schools  of  Peoria  and  twenty-five  other  cities. 

(Bay  City  omitted,  as  data  for  recent  years  were  not  available.) 


must  be  as  small,  on  the  average,  as  they  are  in  Peoria  in  order  that 
good  teaching  may  be  done.  W  here  provision  is  made  in  the  form  of  a 
special  school  to  take  care  of  particularly  difficult  cases,  from  twenty- 
eight  to  thirty  pupils  per  teacher  on  the  average  is  not  excessive. 
Of  course  the  attempt  to  ke<  p  the  average  number  of  pupils  per 
teacher  up  to  some  such  stand.- rd  will  do  injury  to  the  schools  un¬ 
less  it  is  accompanied  by  the  policy  of  fixing  a  maximum  number 
of  pupils  per  teacher.  At  any  rate  if  the  teachers  of  any  city  are 
anxious  to  have  salaries  equal  to  the  highest  paid  in  other  cities 
they  cannot  reasonably  expect  to  have  the  smallest  classes  also.  Dia¬ 
gram  V1L  shows  that  Davenport,  Fort  Wayne,  and  Kalamazoo  are 
the  only  cities  in  which  the  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  in  the 
grades  is  smaller  than  it  is  in  Peoria.  But  Davenport  ranks  twenty- 
third,  Fort  Wa  lie  thirteenth,  Kalamazoo  seventeenth,  while  Peoria 
ranks  third  as  to  average  salaries. 


In  the  case  of  high  schools  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  an 
average  of  twenty  to  twenty-two  pupils  per  teacher  is  not  exces¬ 
sive,  provided  that  the  administrative  policy  seeks  intelligently  to 
equalize  the  burdens  of  the  different  members  of  the  teaching  staff. 
A  detailed  analysis  of  the  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  in  the  two 
secondary  schools  of  Peoria  last  year  and  during  the  current  school 
year  shows  something  not  revealed  by  the  tables.  While  the  av¬ 
erage  for  the  two  schools  was  17.06  it  was  16.5  for  the  Manual 
Training  High  School  and  17.7  for  the  Peoria  High  School.  For 
the  first  semester  of  the  present  school  year  the  average  number  for 
the  Manual  Training  High  School  was  14,  while  for  the  new  Peoria 
Pligh  School  it  was  20.7.  Even  the  last  comparatively  high  figures, 
as  measured  by  local  standards,  is  considerably  below  the  average 
for  the  twenty-seven  cities,  namely  21.6. 


Principals’  Salaries 

There  are  three  cities  paying  more  per  pupil  for  salaries  of 
elementary  school  principals  than  in  Peoria,  namely  Sioux  City,  To¬ 
peka,  and  Springfield,  O.  Sioux  City,  with  seven-eighths  as  many 
pupils  as  Peoria,  has  twenty-four  elementary  school  buildings  as 
compared  to  twenty  for  Peoria.  This  is  evidently  due  to  the  fact 
that  Sioux  City  is  spread  over  an  extensive  area,  nearly  five  times 
as  large  as  that  of  Peoria.  While  Sioux  City  pays  lower  princi¬ 
pals’  salaries  than  Peoria,  yet  the  cost  per  pupil  is  higher,  due  to 
the  comparatively  small  number  of  pupils  per  school.  Topeka,  with 
not  quite  three-fourths  as  lany  pupils,  has  twenty-two  elementary 
school  buildings.  Althougl  principals’  salaries  are  lower  in  Peo¬ 
ria  the  cost  per  pupil  is  higher.  Springfield,  O.,  with  four-fifths 
as  many  pupils  as  Peoria,  has  21  buildings. 


38 


Table  XII. 


Number  of  supervisors,  assistant  supervisors,  special  teachers,  salary  cost,  1916-1917. 


1 

CITY 

No. 

Art 

Salaries 

Music 

No.  Salaries 

/ 

Physical 

training: 

No.  Salaries 

Manual 

training: 

No.  Salaries 

Sewing’ 

No.  Salaries 

Cooking 

No.  Salaries 

Penmanship 

No.  Salaries 

Primary 

supervisor 

/ 

No.  Salaries 

Other  subjects 
or  depart¬ 
ments 

No.  Salaries 

No. 

Total 

Salaries 

Rank 
as  to 
total 
cost 

Akron 

2 

$2,600 

2 

$3,000 

4 

$  5  600 

23 

14  a  v  C 1 1  v 

1 

Lm! 

1 

1 

4 

2 

3 

1 

13 

•••*••* 

J-Jcij  CU)  . 

t  q  ti  f  rt  n 

X 

? 

2,000 

1  050 

X 

2 

2,000 

1  230 

X 

nr 

« 

88  000 

Ld 

4 

$4  700 

7 

$5  750 

23 

22,450 

11 

C  ovi  n  afon 

1 

1 

1 

$1,000 

1,600 

o 

3 

vDUjUUU 

3,600 

5,200 

i 

1 

750 

•  j 
1 

900 

1 

$1,050 

4 

$2,450 

13 

12,050 

18 

X/  VJ  V  Lvll  •  •  •  •  •  t  ••  •  ••  •  •• 

Davenport  . 

1 

1  jV  J  V 

1,500 

1 

JL  y  \J 

900 

1 

*4 

*3 

3,150 

*1 

1,200 

*1 

950 

1 

$1,700  ' 

*1 

1,500 

14 

16,200 

15 

D  e  s  AT  o  i  n  e  s 

4 

4  200 

3 

3  875 

7 

8  300 

23 

$21,660 

3 

3,650 

40 

41,685 

6 

Tlnlnth  M  Q1  ?  Ill 

1 

1  1  SO 

1 

1  100 

1 

1  400 

6 

5  700 

s 

13  875 

14 

13,225 

16 

i_>tLLiULii  yiy  llj  i \j )  . 

East  St.  Louis  (1912-13). 

X 

2 

X  y  X  kJ 
2,200 

X 

2 

X  y  X  vy  KJ 

1,700 

X 

1 

X  yl\J\J 
1,200 

3 

3,460 

1 

750 

2 

1,450 

1 

1,000 

12 

11,760 

-4  -4  A  A  A 

19 

T7  T1  Qxri  1 1 

1 

1  600 

1 

1  600 

1 

1  750 

1 

2,500 

1 

1,800 

1 

1,750 

6 

11,000 

20 

_LL  Vallov  111C  •  •  .  . . 

In'll' nt 

1 

1  000 

1 

950 

2 

1  850 

5 

3 

3 

1 

900 

16 

J?  III!  L  . 

Tn'nrt  WavlIP  .  . 

4,600 

1 

1.600 

2 

2,750 

12,200 

$5,000 

1 

1,600 

1 

1,900 

•  •  •  • 

9,815 

•  •  •  • 

39,465 

5 

T<T  o  I  o  tTl  O  *7  A  A 

10 

7  150 

10 

7  100 

22 

20,000  ' 

r  10 

9  300 

5 

4  050 

5 

4,050 

9 

6,000 

71 

57,650 

1 

X\_  diciliiclZ,UO  .  .  •  ...  ..  .  ••  •  • 

TC  n  11  c  o  C  (  '  1  f  ir 

1 

1  260 

1 

1  260 

5 

4,635 

1 

1.125 

8 

8,280 

21 

XVdllbcib  . 

T  i  n  c  r>  1  n  .... 

7 

6,112 

7 

6.304 

6 

6,611 

6 

9,394 

6 

$7,604 

1 

1,250 

1 

900  1 

•  •  •  • 

2,753 

•  •  •  • 

40,928 

4 

“P  p  a  r  1  Q  • 

12  1 

10,789 

10.3 

8,451 

6 

6  400 

7.65 

8,061 

8.35 

6,612 

5.8 

5,451 

1 

1,300 

51.2 

45,764 

2 

Paeirip  ... 

1 

1,100 

2 

1,700 

1 

1,600 

1 

1,900 

6 

4.600 

6 

4,450  , 

1 

1,200 

1 

1,300 

19 

17,850 

13 

2 

2  550 

1 

1,100 

2 

2,600 

5% 

6,150 

5 

$3  950 

15  % 

16  350 

14 

(  101?  Ill  ( H  ) 

1 

675 

2 

1  845 

1 

1,680 

4 

3,780 

4 

$3,618 

1 

990 

13 

12,588 

17 

bt.  J  osepn  {Ly±£-Loj  vu/-- 
Saginaw,  Hast  Side . 

1 

1,750 

1 

1,550 

3 

3,200 

9 

10,600 

4 

2,950 

3 

2,450 

1 

725 

22 

23,225 

10 

1 

800 

1 

950 

3 

2,400 

2 

$1,200 

7 

5,350 

24 

bagmaw,  vv  esc  oicic . 

C  4  -1  1  AT  (  ^  1 1  \r 

2 

2  500 

2 

‘  2,050 

2 

1,000 

4 

3.100 

3 

2,750 

1  3 

117 

2,300 

1 

11 

10,200 

27 

23,900 

9 

South  Bend  . 

3 

3,300 

1 

1,500 

2 

2,000 

3 

4,295 

4 

3,250 

i  s 

3.350 

1 

1,300 

i 

1,500 

4 

3,480 

24 

23,975 

8 

1 

1  650 

1 

1.550 

8 

8,300 

8 

$6,810 

•  •  •  • 

| 

18 

18,310 

12 

bprmgneici,  xii . •  • 

Springfield  O.  (1912-13). 

1 

950 

1 

1(450 

1 

1,000 

i 

1,100 

1 

900 

1 

950 

? 

1,450 

8 

7 '800 

22 

3 

(a)  2.850 

3 

3,000 

3 

9 

(a)  11,900 

1  4 

3,800 

3 

1  2.625 

1 . 

8 

3,000 

4 

4  330  1  2 

2,150 

1  13 

13,350 

10 

1(c)  96501  1 

1.300 

*  *  *  * 

30 

31  000 

6 

I  erre  riaiiie  . 

r  j  '  /i|  .r  ..... 

9  J 

2,000  i 

3  i 

( b )  3  200 

i 

1,700 

10 

10,185 

5.5 

3,930 

5 

3.870 

!.... 

26.5 

24  885 

KJ 

7 

1 

1,100 

,  1 

1,100 

1 

I 

i 

|  1 

1  200 

. ! . i . . . . 

Average  Cost  . 

$2,703 

$2,379 

$3,560 

$6,514 

.... 

$3,050 

•  •  •  * 

$3,139 

1 

1  i 

1 

i 

i  $22,137 

^Supervisors  and  teachers  devote  half  or  more  of  their  time  to  high  school  teaching. 

-(-Combined  sewing  and  cooking. 

tCombined  manual  training,  sewing  and  cooking. 

( a )  One  supervisor  in  charge  of  art  and  manual  training. 

I,  One  of  the  three  is  a  special  teacher  of  art  and  music  in  the  Junior  High  School. 

(c) Does  not  include  high  school  teachers.^ 

(d) 

Trainin 


c) Does  not  include  nign  scnooi  teacnert,. 

for  1916-17  arrived  too  late  to  be  included  above,  but  are  as  follows:  Art,  (1)  $1170;  Music,  (f 
$6345-  Sewin°'  (4)  $3510;  Cooking,  (4)  $4050;  Sewing  and  Cooking  combined  (1)  $720;  Total,  (22 


CCpTCo  Physical  TraininS.  (2)  $2580;  Manual 


On  the  other  hand  Akron,  with  seventy  per  cent  more  pupils 
than  Peoria,  has  only  nineteen  elementary  school  principals,  and 
although  paying  an  average  salary  of  $1,400,  the  cost  per  pupil  for 
principals’  salaries  in  Akron  is  less  than  half  of  what  it  is  in  Peo¬ 
ria.  Canton,  with  almost  as  many  pupils  as  Peoria,  has  twenty  ele¬ 
mentary  school  buildings,  the  same  number  found  in  Peoria,  but 
only  twelve  pincipals.  Four  of  her  principals  have  charge  of  one 
building  each.  T he  other  eight  have  charge  of  the  remaining  six¬ 
teen  buildings.  Principals’  salaries  average  $1,575  in  Canton  as 
compared  with  $1,585  in  Peoria.  The  result  is  a  comparative  sav¬ 
ing  of  $1.55  per  pupil  in  Canton.  Furthermore,  Canton  is  no  more 
compactly  built  than  Peoria. 


The  situation  in  Peoria  with  reference  to  salaries  of  elementary 
school  principals  is  unique  in  one  respect.  With  one  exception 
all  of  its  principals  were  drawing  salaries  of  either  $1,450  or  $1,700, 
eight  at  the  former  level,  and  eleven  at  the  latter.  The  exceptional 
salary  was  $1500.00.  Furthermore,  size  of  buildings,  number  of 
teachers,  or  number  of  pupils  do  not  seem  to  be  determining  factors. 
In  some  cases  principals  of  schools  with  small  enrollment  are  draw¬ 
ing  higher  salaries  than  principals  of  schools  with  larger  enrollment. 
In  one  case  the  principal  of  one  school  gets  a  larger  salary  than 
the  principal  of  another  having  an  average  daily  attendance  one 
hundred  twenty  per  cent  larger  than  that  of  the  former.  No  other 
city  in  the  group  presents  a  similar  situation  or  one  that  is  even 
fairly  comparable  to  this  one.  It  would  seem  that  here  also  Peoria 
has  been  more  liberal  than  the  educational  needs  required. 


Supervisors  And  Teachers  Of  Special  Subjects 

Table  XII.  shows  the  total  salary  costs  for  supervisors  and 
teachers  of  so-called  special  subjects.  The  data  were  secured  by 
means  of  an  inquiry  made  of  the  superintendents  of  the  respective 
cities.  Where  information  for  the  present  school  year  was  not 
obtainable,  older  data  were  used,  taken  from  “The  Tangible  Re¬ 
wards  of  Teaching,”  Bulletin  No.  16,  1914,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Educa¬ 
tion.  Supervisors,  assistant  supervisors,  and  teachers  were  grouped, 
because  in  many  cases  the  facts  for  each  separate  class  of  instruc¬ 
tors  were  not  secured.  For  art  Peoria  pays  $3,639,  or  50  per  cent, 
more  than  any  other  city  in  the  list;  for  music,  $1,351,  or  19  per  cent 
more  than  any  other.  For  physical  training  she  pays  less  than  three 
cities,  but  pays  $2,840,  or  80  per  cent,  more  than  the  average.  For 
manual  training  Peoria  pays  less  than  eight  cities  in  the  list,  but  still 
pays  $1,547,  or  nearly  24  per  cent,  more  than  the  average.  In  the  case 
of  sewing,  Peoria  ranks  second,  paying  $6,612  as  compared  to 
$7,220  by  DesMoines  (assuming  that  in  the  case  of  the  latter  city 


39 


the  whole  amount  paid  for  manual  training,  sewing,  and  cooking  is 
equally  divided  between  these  three  subjects).  At  the  same  time 
Peoria  pays  $3,562,  or  116  per  cent  more  than  the  average.  For 
cooking,  Peoria  pays  less  than  two  cities,  but  $2,312,  or  nearly  7 4 
per  cent,  more  than  the  average.  In  the  matter  of  total  cost  Peo¬ 
ria  is  outranked  by  only  one  city,  namely,  Kalamazoo,  which  pays 
$11,886  more  than  Peoria.  This  excess  is  due  to  the  high  cost  of 
physical  training  in  Kalamazoo,  which  is  greater  by  $13,600  than 
the  amount  paid  in  Peoria.  For  all  the  other  special  subjects,  Peo¬ 
ria  pays  $1,714  more  than  Kalamazoo.  The  total  salary  cost  in  Des 
Moines,  third  in  rank,  is  $4,079  less  than  in  that  of  Peoria,  although 
DesMoines  has  to  provide  for  82  per  cent  more  pupils.  The  total 
cost  in  Peoria  is  $23,627,  or  107  per  cent,  more  than  the  average. 
It  may  be  urged  that  it  is  unfair  to  compare  the  cost  in  Peoria  with 
the  average  cost  for  the  group  of  cities,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  near¬ 
ly  three-fourths  of  these  cities  are  smaller  than  Peoria.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  average  of  the  costs  for  the  seven  cities  that  are  larger 
than  Peoria,  namely  Akron,  Des  Moines,  Duluth,  Evansville,  Fort 
Wayne,  Kansas  City,  and  St.  Joseph,  is  less  than  the  average  for 
the  twenty-seven  cities  in  the  case  of  all  subjects  listed,  with  the 
sole  exception  of  cooking. 


Kindergartens 

In  a  reply  to  a  letter  of  inquiry  sent  to  the  superintendents 
of  the  other  twenty-seven  school  systems  in  the  group  answers  were 
received  from  all  but  two :  Duluth  and  East  St.  Louis.  Of  the 
twenty-five  remaining  systems  all  have  kindergartens  except  Rock¬ 
ford,  Saginaw  (East  Side),  Springfield,  Ill.,  and  Wichita.  In  Sag¬ 
inaw  (West  Side)  with  three  kindergartners,  in  South  Bend,  with 
sixteen,  and  in  Peoria,  with  thirty-three,  the  kindergarten  teachers 
teach  in  the  forenoon  only.  In  Topeka,  having  three  directors  and 
four  assistants,  one  teaches  both  in  the  forenoon  and  afternoon. 
In  Fort  Wayne,  employing  twenty-two  kindergartners,  most  teach 
in  the  forenoon  only.  In  the  remaining  seventeen  school  systems 
the  kindergarten  teachers,  or  “preliminary’’  teachers  as  they  are 
called  in  Sioux  City,  teach  in  the  forenoon  and  afternoon.  In  other 
words,  out  of  twenty-two  cities  having  kindergartens,  there  are  only 
three  in  which  teaching  is  confined  to  the  forenoon  for  all  kinder¬ 
garten  teachers.  Furthermore,  Peoria  employs  a  larger  number 
of  kindergarten  teachers  than  any  other  system  in  the  list,  with  the 
exception  of  DesMoines  and  Sioux  City,  the  former  employing  fifty, 
the  latter  thirty-eight.  If  DesMoines  and  Sioux  City  were  having 
their  kindergarten  or  preliminary  teaching  done  on  the  basis  on 
which  it  is  done  in  Peoria,  the  former  city  would  have  to  employ 
one  hundred  kindergartners,  and  the  latter  seventy-six. 


40 


C^)st  Of  Instruction  May  Safely  Be  Reduced 

At  present  it  is  impossible  to  tell  whether  any  of  the  bills 
now  before  ih,e  legislature,  providing  for  the  payment  of  tuition  by 
districts,  will  be  enacted  into  law.  If  such  legislation  should  be  ef¬ 
fected,  it  would  be  reasonably  safe  to  assume  that  this  would  pro¬ 
vide  an  additional  $3,000  in  the  wray  of  income  for  the  educational 
fund.  In  that  case  the  Board  of  School  Inspectors  would  need 
to  reduce  the  expenditures  by  only  $21,000.  In  case  such  legisla¬ 
tion  should  not  be  enacted,  the  Board  will  need  to  reduce  the  ex¬ 
penditures  from  the  educational  fund  by  $24,000,  or  find  other 
sources  of  income. 

What  would  it  mean  to  reduce  the  expenditures  from  the  edu¬ 
cational  fund  to  $461,717.80,  the  amount  representing  the  probable 
income?  If  to  this  amount  be  added  $20,000  from  the  building  fund 
for  payment  of  maintenance  expenditures,  the  total  amount  for  ex¬ 
penditures  for  1917-18  would  be  $481,217.80.  The  average  daily 
attendance  for  next  school-year  will  probably  not  be  as  great  as  9600 
unless  the  legislation  referred  to  above  should  be  enacted.  But 
assuming  that  the  attendance  should  reach  9600,  the  cost  per  pupil 
would  be  $50.18,  which  is  69  cents  more  than  was  paid  in  Sioux  City, 
which  city  ranked  eighth  in  cost  per  pupil  last  year. 

Table  III.  shows  that  nearly  80  per  cent  of  the  total  expendi¬ 
tures  are  for  instruction.  Peoria  ranked  highest  of  all  the  cities 
in  the  group  in  the  matter  of  cost  per  pupil  for  instruction,  paying 
$40.47,  or  $2.33  more  than  the  next  highest.  The  significance  of 
this  difference  becomes  even  more  apparent  from  a  look  at  Dia¬ 
gram  IX.  The  probable  cost  of  instruction  for  the  present  year 
will  be  $380,585,  or  $41.08  per  pupil,  which  is  61  cents  more  per 
pupil  than  last  year’s  cost.  If  no  additions  are  made  to  the  super¬ 
visory  or  teaching  force,  next  year’s  cost  for  instruction  will  be 
about  $395,695,  or  $41.22  per  pupil. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  expenditures  were  to  be  reduced  by 
$24,000  and  if  this  reduction  should  be  made  entirely  in  the  cost 
of  instruction,  it  would  reduce  the  cost  per  pupil  to  $38.72,  which 
is  58c  more  per  pupil  than  was  paid  in  Des  Moines  last  year,  which 
city  ranked  second  in  cost  per  pupil  for  instruction.  If  the  atten¬ 
dance  should  be  unexpectedly  increased  to  9700,  the  cost  per  pupil 
would  be  $38.32  which  is  18  cents  more  than  the  cost  in  PesMoines 
last  year. 


Where  Make  The  Reduction  of  $24,000? 

As  nearly  80  per  cent  of  the  total  expenditures  last  year  was 
incurred  for  instruction,  and  as  the  expenditures  under  other  heads 


41 


1  - 

rH 

© 

© 

CO 

00 

00 

t~ 

-T 

rH 

rH 

© 

o 

iq 

"O 

© 

© 

© 

00 

00 

00 

t- 

t- 

t4 

I- 

lO 

"tl 

cc 

CO 

CO 

00 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO' 

rH 

© 

00 

rH 

oi 

00 

oi 

© 

rti 

Hji 

t- 

© 

t- 

© 

CO 

rH 

iq 

CO 

CO 

■4 

00 

oi 

oi 

oi 

oi 

oi 

rH 

rH 

rH 

CO 

CO 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

1C 

© 

© 

00 

© 

© 

o> 

OI 

rH 

© 

© 

iq 

rH 

© 

t- 

a 

© 

© 

©‘ 

oo" 

cc 

00 

00 

LO 

©■ 

© 

00 

© 

© 

OI 

OI 

OI 

OI 

Cl 

OI 

a> 


m  ~ 


02 

O 

o 

o 

a 

a 

-M 

'v 

£2 

c 

4-> 

0) 

o 

N 

05 

c3 

Vv 

•rH 

U 

« 

o 

ca 

rH 

o 

C3 

W_ 

£ 

£ 

© 

r*| 

a 

bo 

A 

•rH 

rH 

4h 

C3 

CJ 

-M 

Cj 

O 

o 

o 

rjl 
•  O 

C3 

o 

C 

•  rH 

.9 

o 

t> 

03 

r~l 

£h 

w 

r~ 

02 

Of 

a 

0Q 

M 

<D 

+j 

a 

cj 


cj 

a 

o 


cc 

cj 

W 

£ 

Cj 

a 

"be 

Zfl 


cj 


O 


O  t* 

&fi  tt  r 
«  a  ~ 


<U 


> 

m 

a 


03 


a: 

a 

o> 

CC 

o 


S  »  fl 


a.  -a 


© 

rH 

o 

«t-l 

^3 

o 

O 

<v< 


o 


<D 

SC 

a 


a 

o 


CO 
Cj 
CO 

a 

a  _ 

&  02  U 


a 

a  oj 


£3 

O 


Q)  <fl 

.2  %+, 

O  CO 

cj  cj 

M  K 


aj 


a 

o 

(H 


cc 

-t-> 

co 

4J 


£ 

cj 

a 


S  •“ 
£  <q 


on  « 
cj  a 
02  fe 


42 


$10.00  $20.00  '  $30.00  $40.00 

Diagram  IX. — Cost  per  pupil  for  instruction,  Peoria  and  twenty-seven  other  city  school-systems. 


were  nearly  all  below  the  average,  it  is  evident  that  practically  all 
of  the  above  amount  needs  to  be  cut  out  of  the  budget  for  instruc¬ 
tion.  There  are  two  items  particularly  in  which  expenditures  in 
Peoria  exceed  the  corresponding  items  in  other  cities  in  the  group  : 
the  cost  for  kindergartens,  and  the  cost  for  instruction  in  the 
Manual  Training  High  School.  If  kindergarten  teachers  were  re¬ 
quired  to  teach  both  forenoon  and  afternoon,  half  of  the  teaching 
force  could  do  the  work  to  be  done.  The  salaries  paid  last  year 
to  kindergarten  teachers,  not  counting  the  supervisor’s  salary, 
amounted  to  $21,787.95.  This  amount  could  be  reduced  by  $11,000 
without  crippling  the  work. 

The  cost  per  pupil  for  teachers’  salaries  at  the  Manual  Training 
Pligh  School  this  year  will  be  fully  $83.50  unless  there  should  be  an 
unusually  tenacious  attendance  the  rest  of  the  school  year.  This 
amount  is  about  $17.85  more  per  pupil  than  the  corresponding  cost 
last  year.  The  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  will  be  about  14.4, 
which  is  very  low  as  compared  to  that  of  any  of  the  high  schools  in 
the  group.  If  the  cost  per  pupil  for  this  item  were  to  be  reduced 
to  $65.86,  which  was  the  cost  at  Fort  Wayne,  and  the  highest  paid 
by  any  city  in  the  group,  it  would  mean  $32,600  paid  for  teachers’ 
salaries  instead  of  $41,018,  the  rate  paid  during  the  second 
semester  of  the  present  school  year.  This  would  be  a  reduction  of 
$8,418,  equal  to  salaries  paid  to  perhaps  six  or  eight  teachers.  If 
the  total  number  of  teachers  at  the  Manual  Training  High  School 
were  to  be  reduced  by  eight,  it  would  leave  twenty-six  teachers,  or 
nineteen  pupils  per  teacher,  which  is  considerably  lower  than  that  of 
the  average  for  the  group  of  cities.  If  there  were  28  teachers, 
the  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  would  be  17.6.  At  the  new 
Peoria  High  School,  the  cost  per  -pupil  for  teachers’  salaries  will 
be  about  $58.20,  which  is  $4.77  less  than  the  cost  last  year.  Here 
also  the  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  is  relatively  small— only 
18  during  the  second  semester  of  the  present  year. 

% 

There  is  one  other  significant  comparison  to  be  made  to  deter¬ 
mine  where  costs  for  instruction  in  Peoria  are  relatively  high.  "Fa¬ 
ble  VII,  shows  that  in  the  cost  per  pupil  for  principals’  salaries 
and  expenses  Peoria  ranks  third.  As  to  cost  for  salaries  of  prin¬ 
cipals  and  their  clerks  in  secondary  schools  Peoria  ranks  second, 
paying  $5.56,  while  Kalamazoo  paid  $5.58.  For  the  present  school- 
year  the  cost  at  the  Peoria  High  School  is  $6.22  and  at  the  Manual 
Training  High  School  it  is  $6.97.  It  would  appear  from  this  that 
the  Board  of  School  Inspectors  makes  it  easier  for  their  high  school 
teachers  than  other  Boards  of  Education  seem  to  do.  For  while  in 
other  high  schools  the  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  is  larger  than 
it  is  in  Peoria,  these  same  teachers  assume  additional  burdens  not 
placed,  to  the  same  extent,  upon  teachers  in  the  Peoria  High 
Schools. 


43 


As  to  elementary  school  principals,  Table  VIII.  shows  that  Peoria 
ranks  fourth.  In  several  parts  of  the  city  elementary  school  build¬ 
ings  are  only  six  or  eight  blocks  apart.  A  supervisory  principal, 
placed  in  charge  of  two  or  even  three  buildings,  and  aided  in  each 
by  an  assistant  principal,  would  probably  secure  as  efficient  super¬ 
vision  as  is  secured  under  the  present  plan,  for  most  of  the  prin¬ 
cipals  in  the  elementary  schools  teach  part  of  the  time.  When  a 
vacancy  occurs  in  a  principalship  now  paying  $1,700,  it  would  be 
well  to  try  the  plan  of  placing  a  principal  of  a  nearby  building  in 
charge  of  this  additional  one.  A  vacancy  supplied  according  to  this 
plan  would  mean  a  saving  of  $1,500  or  $1,600  without  reducing  the 
efficiency  of  the  schools.  If  a  supervising  principal  were  placed 
in  charge  of  three  buildings,  there  would  be  a  saving  of  $2,500  to 
$2,800.  If  there  were  eighteen  elementary  school  principals  in¬ 
stead  of  twenty  it  would  involve  a  saving  of  $3,000. 

To  sum  up :  The  kindergartens  could  do  their  work  for  $11,000 
less  than  they  are  costing,  and  could  do  it  as  well  as  they  are  doing 
it  now.  If  the  teachers’  pay-roll  at  the  Manual  ■  Training  High 
School  totaled  $8,200  less  than  it  does,  the  cost  per  pupil  would,  be 
$66.50,  which  is  64  cents  more  than  it  was  in  Fort  Wayne  last 
year,  where  the  cost  per  pupil  was  highest.  Two  vacancies  in  ele¬ 
mentary  school  principalships  filled  according  to  the  plan  sug¬ 
gested  would  involve  a  saving  of  $3,000.  This  would  leave  $1,800 
to  be  eliminated.  The  cost  of  supervision  and  teaching  of  special 
subjects  might  be  reduced  to  this  extent.  Or  this  amount  could 
be  saved  by  not  filling  two  or  three  positions  in  the  elementary 
schools. 

Table  XIII.  shows  the  number  of  pupils  and  of  teachers  in  the 
different  elementary  and  secondary  schools  of  Peoria  during  the 
school  year  1915-16.  The  average  number  of  pupils  per  teacher 
is  26.8.  Only  five  of  the  schools,  namely,  the  Whittier,  the  Har¬ 
rison,  the  Lincoln,  the  Sumner,  and  the  Glen  Oak,  show  as  large  a 
number  of  pupils  per  teacher  as  the  average  for  the  twenty-eight 
school  systems  studied.  At  the  present  time  it  seems  that  only 
five  schools  will  reach  that  average  this  year,  namely  the  Wash¬ 
ington,  the  Glen  Oak,  the  Sumner,  the  Harrison,  and  the  Garfield. 
It  is  necessary  to  note  the  fact  that  Table  XIII  does  not  include 
kindergarten  pupils  or  teachers,  as  is  the  case  in  all  the  tables  in 
which  comparisons  are  made  with  other  cities.  After  making  due 
allowance  for  the  probable  increase  in  attendance,  and  on  the  as¬ 
sumption  that  the  kindergarten  force  be  reduced  to  half  its  present 
size,  the  average  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  would  still  be  slight¬ 
ly  higher  in  at  least  some  of  the  schools  than  was  the  average  for 
all  the  cities  in  the  group,  and  it  would  be  considerably  higher  than 
the  average  for  the  cities  paying  as  high  salaries  as  Peoria.  How- 


44 


ever,  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  attempt  to  reduce  the  total  number 
of  teachers  for  the  elementary  schools  and  kindergartens  below  280 
for  the  coming  school  year,  and  after  that,  plans  ought  to  be  made  to 
increase  that  number  in  proportion  to  the  increase  in  attendance.  At 
the  present  rate  of  annual  increase  in  population  the  necessary 
annual  increase  in  the  number  of  elementary  school  teachers  would 
be  about  half  a  dozen. 


Table  XIII. 


Number  of  teachers  and  of 


pupils  in  the  elementary  schools  and  secondary  schools 


of  Peoria,  1915-1916. 


SCHOOL 

Teachers  of 
so-called 
regfular 
subjects 

Teachers 
of  art, 
music, 
physical 
training-, 
manual 
training-, 
sewing 
and 

cooking 

Total 
number  of 
teachers 

Number  of 
pupils  in 
average 
daily 

attendance 

Number  of 
pupils  per 
teacher 

Rank 
as  to 
number 
of  pupils 
per 

teacher 

Peoria  High . 

26 

5  11/30 

31.367 

558 

17.7 

Manual  Tr.  High 

28 

7  8/15 

35.533 

585 

16.5  , 

Blaine  . 

11.40 

1.016 

12.42 

324 

26.1 

13 

Columbia  . 

11.825 

.575 

12.40 

283 

22.8 

17 

Douglas  . 

13.6 

1.40 

15.00 

408 

27.2 

12 

Franklin  . 

13.25 

.50 

13.75 

347 

25.3 

14 

Garfield  . 

13.40 

.766 

14.17 

387 

27.3 

10 

Glen  Oak . 

10.80 

1.45 

12.25 

358 

29.2 

5 

Greeley  . 

12. 

2.00 

14.00 

351 

25.0 

15 

Harrison  . 

15. 

.54 

15.54 

473 

30.4 

2 

Irving  . 

8.60 

2.32 

10.92 

303 

27.7 

8 

Lee  . 

11. 

1.77 

12.77 

289 

22.6 

18 

Lincoln  . 

14. 

1.29 

15.29 

458 

30.0 

3 

Longfellow  .... 

10.60 

2.10 

12.70 

284 

22.4 

20 

Loucks  . 

8. 

1.32 

9.32 

209 

22.4 

19 

McKinley . 

11.50 

.67 

12.17 

280 

23.0 

16 

Sumner  . 

10. 

1.00 

11.00 

329 

29.9 

4 

Lucie  B.  Tyng  .  . 

12. 

1.25 

13.25 

367 

27.7 

9 

Washington  .  .  . 

11. 

1.20 

12.20 

346 

28.4 

6 

Webster  . 

17. 

1.40 

18.40 

501 

27.2 

11 

White  . 

14. 

2.32 

16.32 

461 

28.2 

7 

Whittier  . 

9.80 

1.15 

10.95 

344 

31.4 

1 

45 


All  things  considered,  there  is  hardly  room  for  doubt,  that  the 
public  schools  of  Peoria  could  conceivably  be  operated  for  $24,000 
less  than  it  is  costing  now,  and  without  impairing  their  efficiency. 
But  it  is  one  thing  to  plan  the  administration  of  a  school  system  in 
such  a  way  as  to  prevent  unnecessary  or  excessive  costs,  and  quite 
a  different  thing  to  reduce  the  excessive  expenditures  after  they 
have  come  to  be  looked  upon  as  normal.  Yet,  unless  some  other 
means  of  raising  funds  can  be  devised,  there  is  no  election;  it  will 
be  necessary  to  do  the  thing  that  involves  serious  inconvenience, 
perhaps  injustice  to  individuals. 

t  t  ^ 

Should  the  Board  of  School  Inspectors  find  it  impossible  to 
avoid  the  curtailing  of  expenditures  by  $21,000  to  $24,000,  it  goes 
without  saying  that  the  superintendent  of  schools  should  be  a  de¬ 
termining  factor  in  deciding  just  what  specific  changes  ought 
to  be  made.  Idle  matter  of  dropping  teachers  is  a  serious  one, 
and  it  ought  never  to  be  resorted  to  unless  the  need  to  do  so  is  im¬ 
perative.  Where  this  is  unmistakably  necessary,  even  those  directly 
affected  may  submit  with  good  grace,  for  competent  teachers  can 
always  secure  new  positions,  inconvenient  as  such  forced  changes 
may  be.  But  some  of  the  problems  by  which  the  Board  and  the 
superintendent  are  at  present  confronted  are  of  even  graver  mo¬ 
ment  than  this.  Foremost  is  that  o^  reducing  costs  at  the  Manual 
Training  High  School.  This  involves  more  than  a  dropping  of 
teachers.  A  working  organization  of  the  instructional  force  has 
been  in  operation  for  some  years  and  it  will  be  rather  difficult  to 
effect  the  necessary  readjustments  at  one  stroke  without  seriously 
interfering  with  the  efficiency  of  the  school. 

f ' 

Is  There  No  Other  Alternative? 

To  attempt  to  secure  a  revaluation  of  assessed  property  in  Peo¬ 
ria  would  not  relieve  the  exigencies  of  the  moment,  although  the 
future  might  be  provided  for  in  this  manner.  This  would  be  a  more 
equitable  way  of  increasing  revenues  than  would  the  levying  of  an 
increased  assessment  on  the  present  basis.  Another  thing  that 
might  help  out  with  reference  to  the  future  would  be  a  careful 
study  of  other  public  expenditures,  to  determine  whether  or  not 
any  of  them  are  excessive. 

A  bill  before  our  legislature  providing  for  the  distribution 
of  funds  created  by  an  act  of  Congress  for  the  promotion  of  voca¬ 
tional  education,  might  possibly  be  enacted  into  law.  If  so,  and 
if  the  Board  of  School  Inspectors  be  willing  to  give  up  a  partial 
control  of  the  Manual  Training  High  School,  the  need  of  reducing 
expenditures  in  that  particular  school  will  be  obviated.  This  would 
leave  $15,800  of  the  original  $24,000  to  be  disposed  of.  If  a  law  pro- 


46 


viding  for  payment  by  districts  of  high  school  tuition  for  non-res¬ 
ident  students  should  be  adopted  by  the  state  legislature,  an  ad¬ 
ditional  $3,000  could  be  counted  on.  This  would  leave  $12,800  still 
to  be  reduced.  Just  at  present  the  prospects  that  the  legislature  will 
make  provision  for  meeting  the  requirements  of  the  Federal  Gov¬ 
ernment’s  vocational  education  law  are  unfavorable.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  seems  probably  that  a  law  will  be  passed  providing  for 
the  payment  by  the  district  of  tuition  for  its  pupils  attending  high 
schools  outside  of  the  district.  Should  events  take  this  turn,  the 
Board  will  need  to  reduce  the  estimated  expenditures  on  the  present 
basis  by  about  $21,000.  If  the  Board  does  not  see  fit  to  make  such 
a  reduction,  at  one  blow,  there  is  still  another  way  of  meeting  the 
difficulty.  An  emergency  fund  might  be  created  by  disposing  of 
the  remainder  of  the  property  turned  over  to  the  Board  to  partly 
cover  the  defalcations  of  a  former  superintendent. 

This  property  has  been  administered  for  the  Board  by  a  trustee 
who  receives  a  commission  on  the  receipts  for  all  properties  sold. 
From  January  1,  1908  to  April  21,  1911,  the  receipts  from  this 
fund  amounted  to  $65,500,  on  balance.  Since  that  time  there  have 
been  no  net  receipts.  Instead,  the  Board  has  had  to  pay  out  from 
its  regular  funds  into  this  fund.  The  amounts  thus  paid,  beginning 
with  November  27,  1912,  have  totaled  up  to  the  present,  $8,006.38, 
the  last  payment  being  made  April  11,  1916.  For  three  years  the 
payments  have  been  $2,500  per  year.  The  trustee’s  estimates  of 
the  value  of  these  properties  show  that  they  are  not  worth  any 
more  today  than  they  were  ten  years  ago.  This  amounts  to  saying 
that  the  Board  is  paying  $2,500  a  year  for  the  privilege  of  holding 
on  to  property  estimated  to  be  worth  on  balance,  perhaps  $50,000. 
While  this  annual  expenditure  of  $2,500  technically  needs  to  be 
charged  to  this  fund  as  a  real  estate  account,  it  virtually  is  a  con¬ 
tingent  expense,  increasing  the  annual  expenditures  by  just  so 
much.  And  yet  no  pupil  in  the  schools  of  Peoria  is  deriving  any 
direct  benefit  therefrom.  If  there  were  anything  to  indicate  that 
these  properties  were  increasing  in  value  and  at  a  rate  to  more 
than  compensate  for  the  annual  $2,500  invested  in  them,  there 
might  be  some  reason  for  retaining  them,  although  even  that 
might  be  disputed.  A  Board  of  Education  is  not  supposed  to  be 
in  the  real  estate  business.  Certainly  under  the  existing  circum¬ 
stances  these  properties  ought  to  be  sold,  whether  the  proceeds 
are  to  be  used  as  above  indicated  or  not. 

Just  now  we  are  in  the  grip  of  events  that  are  fraught  with 
most  serious  consequence  as  regards  effects  on  prices  of  all  com¬ 
modities.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  cost  of  all  supplies  used 
for  educational  purposes  will  reach  unprecedented  heights.  If  so, 
it  might  be  well  to  have  an  emergency  fund  on  which  drafts  might 
be  made  to  meet  such  unexpected  demands. 


47 


Ought  Salaries  To  Be  Reduced? 

It  has  been  suggested  that  expenditures  might  be  curtailed  by 
reducing  teachers’  salaries.  It  would  be  a  serious  mistake  to  abolish 
the  present  salary  schedule.  At  a  time  when  prices  are  going  up 
at  leaps  and  bounds  it  would  work  hardship  and  injustice  to 
teachers  to  reduce  their  salaries,  just  as  it  works  hardship  and 
injustice  on  taxpayers  of  moderate  circumstances  to  maintain  the 
present  unnecessarily  high  cost  of  instruction.  If  anything,  salaries 
are  bound  to  go  up  within  the  near  future.  Teachers  feel  the  high 
cost  of  living  just  as  much  as  others  do.  On  the  other  hand 
teachers  in  a  given  city  cannot  reasonably  expect  to  receive  the 
maximum  salaries  if  at  the  same  time  the  proportionate  number 
of  teachers  is  excessively  large.  Salaries  are  ordinarily  apt  to  be 
comparatively  high  for  a  comparatively  small  number  of  teachers 
or  to  be  comparatively  low  for  a  comparatively  large  number  of 
teachers.  As  was  shown  above,  in  Peoria  they  are  comparatively 
high  for  a  very  large  number  of  teachers,  proportionately  speaking. 
And  the  teachers  of  Peoria  will  be  found  to  be  as  reasonable  and 
as  fair-minded  a  group  of  people  as  can  be  found  in  other  walks 
of  life.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  wise  to  let  the  members  of  the 
teaching  staff  remain  under  the  erroneous  impression  that  their 
burdens  are  heavy  as  compared  to  those  of  teachers  in  other  school 
systems  of  approximately  the  same  size.  When  the  facts  are 
known  there  will  be  little  disposition  to  object  to  a  gradual  reduc¬ 
tion  in  the  number  of  teachers. 


Other  Considerations 

The  relatively  small  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  is  largely 
due,  at  least  in  the  elementary  schools,  to  the  fact  that  the  so-called 
special  subjects  are  taught  in  most  of  these  schools  by  special 
teachers,  and  not  by  the  regular  room  teachers.  Peoria  pays  sal¬ 
aries  high  enough  to  secure  the  services  of  teachers  competent  to 
teach  at  least  most  of  these  special  subjects  themselves.  This  is 
especiallv  true  in  view  of  the  fact  that  an  ample  supervisory  staff 
is  provided.  There  is  no  good  reason  for  excusing  the  regular 
teachers  from  teaching  music  and  drawing,  for  instance,  any  more 
than  there  would  be  for  excusing  them  from  teaching  reading  and 
eeographv.  It  is  true  that  there  are  exceptional  cases  of  teachers 
who  are  thoroughly  competent  to  teach  those  subjects  that  are 
known  as  the  regular  subjects,  while  no  amount  of  training  in 
music,  for  instance,  would  qualify  them  to  teach  music.  In  a  case 
of  this  kind  it  would  be  a  comparatively  easy  matter  to  have  such 
a  teacher  teach  some  other  subject  for  one  of  her  fellow-teachers 
in  the  same  building  who  would  in  return  give  instruction  in  music 
to  the  former  teacher’s  pupils.  In  fact,  of  a  given  corps  of  teachers 
one  might  very  well  be  placed  in  charge  of  the  instruction  in  music, 


48 


thus  putting  that  part  of  the  work  on  a  departmental  basis.  But 
it  is  one  thing  to  select  one  of  twelve  teachers  in  a  given  school  to 
do  this  work,  and  quite  a  different  thing  to  add  a  thirteenth  teacher 
to  the  original  force  of  twelve — assuming  that  the  number  of  pupils 
has  remained  practically  the  same.  A  change  in  the  organization 
of  the  work  ought  not  to  mean  an  increase  in  the  number  of  teach¬ 
ers.  Furthermore,  an  organization  of  the  work  of  instruction  that 
necessitates  the  visitation  of  a  given  school  by  a  considerable  num¬ 
ber  of  supervisors  or  of  special  teachers  from  without  is  apt  to 
involve  more  or  less  of  friction  in  the  running  of  the  machinery  of 
instruction. 

The  point  has  been  made  that  the  introduction  of  the  semi¬ 
annual  promotion  plan  is  to  blame  for  the  relatively  large  number 
of  teachers  in  the  elementary  schools  of  Peoria.  The  semi-annual 
promotion  plan  is  in  operation  in  the  great  majority  of  our  larger 
cities.  Of  the  twenty-seven  city  school  systems  with  which  Peoria 
has  been  compared  twenty-three  report  that  the  scheme  is  used  in 
their  schools.  In  two  others  individual  instruction  is  given  to  facili¬ 
tate  promotions.  In  one  other  case  provision  is  made  for  individual 
promotion  in  addition  to  that  made  for  semi-annual  promotion,  and 
in  this  case  the  superintendent  reports  that  the  introduction  of  the 
scheme  called  for  an  increased  expenditure.  This  plan  as  well  as  a 
variety  of  plans  to  provide  flexibility  in  the  scheme  of  gradation 
and  promotion  may  be  put  into  effect  without  adding  to  the  cost  of 
instruction. 

While  it  was  not  the  province  of  the  present  study  to  go  be¬ 
yond  the  matter  of  an  analysis  of  educational  costs,  there  are  in¬ 
dications  that  a  more  efficient  organization  of  the  school-system 
could  be  effected.  The  usefulness  of  the  special  school  might  be 
extended.  Where  such  a  school  is  efficiently  conducted  it  pays 
amply.  For,  while  the  cost  per  pupil  in  such  a  school  may  be 
higher  than  is  the  per  pupil  cost  in  the  rest  of  the  elementary 
schools,  the  lesser  cost  in  the  latter  may  be  largely  due  to  the 
efficiency  of  the  special  school.  The  ordinary  grade  teacher  can 
do  efficient  work  with  a  larger  number  of  pupils  if  she  is  relieved 
of  the  burden  of  taking  care  of  especially  difficult  cases  among  her 
pupils.  It  goes  without  saying  that  teachers  in  the  special  school 
need  to  be  possessed  of  natural  aptitude  for  teaching  besides  having 
secured  expert  training  to  fit  them  for  this  difficult  work. 

/ 

With  such  provisions  to  take  care  of  backward  children  as 
well  as  of  pupils  that  present  unusual  difficulty  as  regards  the 
matter  of  discipline,  it  ought  to  be  possible  to  maintain  the  schools 
of  Peoria  at  a  high  standard  of  efficiency  even  after  reducing  the 
relative  number  of  teachers.  In  this  connection  it  may  be  said  that 
better  provision  ought  to  be  made  for  taking  care  of  superannuated 
teachers  that  retire  from  service.  Steps  ought  to  be  taken  to 


49 


t 


secure  a  revision  of  the  so-called  statewide  teachers’  pension  law 
so  that  teachers  of  the  city  of  Peoria  may  be  included  as  bene¬ 
ficiaries  under  the  provisions  of  this  law.  It  does  not  take  an 
actuary  to  see  that  the  funds  of  the  Peoria  city  pension  system  are 
utterly  inadequate  to  meet  normal  demands  upon  it. 

If  the  signs  of  the  immediate  present  do  not  fail  the  prospects 
are  that  expenditures  both  for  services  and  for  materials  are  bound 
to  increase.  It  will  be  necessary  to  exercise  a  wholesome  economy, 
and  to  do  this  will  require  a  vigilant  foresight.  In  carrying  out 
such  a  policy  it  will  be  best  to  make  adjustments  gradually  instead 
of  resorting  to  drastic  measures  in  effecting  needed  changes.  And 
such  adjustments  can  be  made  only  if  they  follow  plans  looking 
farther  ahead  than  the  brief  period  of  a  year  or  two,  for  which 
reason  the  superintendent  of  schools  ought  to  be  elected  for  a 
longer  period  than  at  present. 

Need  of  a  Modern  System  of  Accounting 

Economy  and  attendant  efficiency  in  the  administration  of  a 
citv  school  system  are  impossible  in  the  absence  of  a  system  of 
accounting  that  readily  reveals  significant  distributions  of  important 
items  or  classes  of  expenditures.  In  the  first  part  of  this 
report,  several  illustrations  were  given  to  show  how  the  present 
svstem  of  accounting  fails  conveniently  to  show  the  real  amounts 
of  different  classes  of  expenditures.  A  system  of  books  that  makes 
it  difficult  to  determine,  at  anv  time  when  such  information  is 
wanted,  the  total  expenditures  for  administration,  for  instruction, 
for  operation,  etc.,  is  a  direct  and  positive  hindrance  to  efficiency 
in  administration.  A  modern  system  of  school  accounting,  would 
provide  such  needed  information  in  a  few  minutes.  Such  a  system 
has  been  devised  and  is  in  use  in  many  places.  Such  a  system 
would  make  it  possible  for  the  superintendent  or  the  secretary  to 
make  out  absolutelv  reliable  reports  to  the  Commissioner  of  Educa¬ 
tion  and  to  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  some¬ 
thing  that  can  not  be  done  in  connection  with  the  present  system 
of  accounting. 

The  fact  that  reports  hitherto  sent  to  Washington  from  Peoria 
were  uniformlv  full  of  inaccuracies  and  the  further  fact  that  for  a 
number  of  vears  no  reports  or  onlv  incomplete  reports  were  sent 
to  Washington  is  due  to  the  svstem  of  accounting  in  use.  And  as 
was  pointed  out  above,  in  the  report  of  the  Secretary  to  the 
Pioard  there  are  a  number  of  places  where  it  was  impossible  to 
furnish  absolutelv  reliable  data  with  regard  to  certain  items,  even 
after  the  most  painstaking  efforts  to  secure  them.  This  is  not  to 
b^  taken  to  reflect  in  any  way,  either  on  the  present  Secretary 
of  the  Board  or  on  his  predecessor.  The  system  of  accounting 
used  is  to  blame.  As  citizens  of  Peoria  know,  it  was  devised 


50 


4 


I 


primarily  for  a  different  purpose :  to  make  it  impossible  for  the 
superintendent  of  schools  or  other  employee  to  defraud  the  district 
of  any  of  its  funds.  And  this  purpose  it  does  not  fail  to  realize.  It 
includes  a  sysetm  of  double  and  even  triple  checks  that  would 
practically ' frustrate  any  extensive  fraudulent  practices;  for  detec¬ 
tion  would  be  inevitable  in  short  order.  There  are  only  two 
channels  that  could  permit  exceptions  :  the  petty  cash  account  and 
the  handling  of  supplies.  As  regards  the  first  a  negligibly  small 
amount  of  money  was  handled  in  this  way.  With  reference  to  the 
second  factor,  however,  there  is  decided  room  for  improvement  over 
the  practice  obtaining  during  the  school  year  1915-1916.  As  was 
explained  above,  instructional  supplies  to  the  value  of  $9,679.85 
were  purchased,  but  of  this  amount  only  $4,316.39  was  charged 
against  specific  schools — less  than  half.  No  supplies  ought  to  leave 
the  supply  department  without  being  previously  requisitioned  and 
without  being  charged  to  the  schools  obtaining  them. 

The  failure  to  make  charges  to  individual  schools  in  all  cases 
in  which  supplies  were  sent  to  such  schools  was  doubtless  due  to 
the  fact  that  it  was  impossible  in  many  cases  to  determine  the  cost 
of  supplies.  It  seems  that  in  the  purchase  of  a  large  share  of  the 
supplies,  unit  bids  are  not  secured.  It  is  a  bad  practice,  when  pur¬ 
chasing  large  quantities  of  a  great  variety  of  supplies,  to  accept 
bids  for  the  supplies  in  lump.  Unit  bids  ought  to  be  insisted  on. 
If  this  is  not  done,  the  supply  office  cannot  reasonably  be  held 
responsible  for  making  complete  and  accurate  charges  for  all  sup¬ 
plies  sent  to  the  different  schools  or  to  the  office.  Furthermore, 
it  is  evident  that  dealers  can  take  advantage  of  the  Board  under 
the  system  of  lump  bids. 

Another  matter  that  calls  for  a  change  of  policy  in  the  purchase 
of  supplies  is  the  need  of  more  definitely  localizing  responsibility. 
Even  a  superficial  examination  of  the  stock  of  supplies  in  the  supply 
department  shows  that  supplies  purchased  at  the  request  of  super¬ 
visors  are  not  always  used  before  their  usefulness  has  expired,  due 
to  changes  in  educational  fashions  or  in  devices  in  vogue.  Some 
supplies  were  either  purchased  in  unconscionably  large  quantities 
or  else  the  supervisor  who  asked  for  their  purchase  had  a  change 
of  heart  with  regard  to  the  advisability  of  their  use.  The  supervisor 
may  be  gone,  but  the  supplies  are  still  there. 

The  question  of  the  advisability  of  the  purchase  of  any  particu¬ 
lar  class  or  quantity  of  supplies  is  first  of  all  a  professional  one, 
not  a  business  one.  Only  a  professional  man  is  qualified  to  decide 
as  to  what  supplies  need  to  be  purchased  and  in  what  quantities. 
Hence,  the  request  for  supplies  should  come  through  the  superin¬ 
tendent  of  schools  to  the  supply  committee  instead  of  coming,  as 
it  now  does,  from  the  members  of  the  supervisory  staff  directly 
to  the  supply  committee.  The  question  as  to  how  much  money  is 


51 


available  for  the  purchase  of  instructional  material  is,  of  course,  a 
business  one,  and  the  professional  administration  needs  to  govern 
itself  accordingly.  But  when  it  comes  to  the  determination  of 
what  supplies  ought  to  be  purchased  and  in  what  quantities,  the 
question  is  clearly  one  for  the  professional  administration.  Any 
other  machinery  makes  for  irresponsibility  and  resulting  ineffi¬ 
ciency. 

In  the  case  of  citizens  of  Peoria  it  would  indeed  same  strange 
if,  after  the  deplorable  experience  with  a  trusted  superintendent 
of  schools  some  years  ago,  there  should  not  be  left  even  now  more 
or  less  of  a  disposition  to  hesitate  about  entrusting  either  a  profes¬ 
sional  or  a  business  administrator  with  seemingly  unlimited  powers. 
But,  if  the  educational  interests  of  the  communtiy  are  to  be  truly 
promoted  it  will  be  necessary  to  localize  responsibility  more  defin¬ 
itely  than  at  present,  mainly  through  extending*  the  powers  of  the 
superintendent  of  schools  with  reference  to  both  professional  and 
business  matters,  as  well  as  giving  the  superintendent  of  repairs 
greater  freedom  of  action. 

Members  of  any  board  of  education  render  a  valuable  com¬ 
munity  service  gratuitously,  a  service  calling  for  the  expenditure 
of  a  great  amount  of  time  and  energy.  But  in  case  of  a  large  board, 
the  work  is  necessarily  done  under  a  handicap.  It  is  for  this  reason 
that  the  movement  favoring  smaller  boards  has  been  rapidly  gaining 
in  strength.  This  has  been  true  even  in  the  case  of  cities  with 
populations  of  more  than  100,000.  Of  the  fifty  cities  in  the  United 
States  which  in  1910  had  populations  of  more  than  100,000,  thirty- 
two  have  reduced  the  size  of  their  school  boards  within  the  last 
twenty  years,  while  only  four  have  increased  the  size  of  their 
boards.  Twenty  years  ago  there  were  fourteen  cities  with  larger 
boards  than  the  Board  of  School  Inspectors  of  Peoria;  today  there 
are  only  five,  namely  New  York  City,  Chicago,  Detroit,  Providence, 
and  Worcester,  and  the  indications  are  that  Chicago  will  drop  out 
of  the  group.  Thirty-three  of  the  fifty  referred  to  above  have 
boards  of  5,  7,  or  9  members.  The  fact  that  fully  two-thirds  of  the 
cities  of  the  country  that  are  larger  than  Peoria  have  decreased  the 
size  of  their  school  boards  would  indicate  that  something  is  apt 
to  be  gained  by  the  change.  In  the  same  way  the  tendency  has 
been  more  and  more  to  adopt  the  system  of  election  at  large  instead 
of  that  of  representation  by  wards. 

Educational  Costs  And  Social  Responsibility 

In  educational  circles  we  hear  a  great  deal  of  talk  about  social 
education.  And  in  the  country  at  large  there  is  a  wide-spread 
sentiment  to  the  effect  that  somehow  we  have  not  succeeded  very 


52 


well  in  the  past  in  imbuing  the  rising  generation  with  a  sufficient 
sense  of  social  responsibility.  Is  it  not  possible  that  the  very 
generosity  of  the  community  helps  to  engender  in  our  young  people 
the  idea  that  everything  is  there  for  them,  without  giving  them  a 
chance  to  become  fully  conscious  of  what  they  owe  to  the  com¬ 
munity?  It  would  be  a  mistake  to  try  to  measure  the  value  of  all 
things  in  dollars  and  cents.  And  yet,  ought  it  not  to  be  possible 
to  impress  the  rising  generation  with  the  idea  of  what  a  debt  they 
are  placed  under  to  society  by  what  society  has  done  for  them? 
There  are  some  things  about  our  educational  practices  that  need 
to  be  changed.  Too  many  children  in  too  many  communities  grow 
up  with  the  idea  that  what  costs  them  nothing  costs  nobody  any¬ 
thing.  Far  too  many  fail  to  respect  public  property.  Far  too  many, 
when  grown  to  maturity,  look  upon  the  public  coffer  as  an  object 
for  exploitation.  Frequently  the  very  citizen  that  complains  about 
the  burden  of  taxation  is  ready  to  enhance  that  burden  by  helping 
to  create  a  sinecure  for  a  friend  or  relative. 

Ought  we  not  to  be  able  to  get  children  to  take  as  good  care 
of  supplies  furnished  by  the  schools  as  they  do  of  those  for  which 
they  pay  themselves?  Are  teachers  always  careful  enough  them¬ 
selves  to  prevent  waste  and  extravagance?  And  aren’t  there  some 
parents  who  might  be  reminded  of  the  expense  to  which  the  com¬ 
munity  goes  in  giving  an  education  to  their  children?  A  study  of 
Tables  I.  and  II.  shows  that,  up  to  the  present  year,  it  costs  the 
city  of  Peoria  nearly  $1000  to  send  a  child  through  school. 

One  year  in  the  kindergarten : 


Current  expenses . 

$49.99 

Interest  and  depreciation _ 

12.62 

$62.61 

Eight  years  in  the  elementary  grades : 

Current  expenses  for  one  year  . . . 

Interest  and  depreciation  for  one  year 

45.38 

12.45 

57.83x8 

462 „64 

Four  years  in  the  high  school : 

Current  expenses  for  one  year . . 

Interest  and  depreciation,  one  year.... 

87.55 

23.26 

110.81x4 

443.24 

$968.49 


At  present  the  expenditures  are  greater.  Estimating  the  average 
daily  attendance  at  the  Peoria  High  School  to  be  740,  the  current 
expenditures  per  pupil  for  the  school  year  1916-1917  will  be  about 
$7.00  more  than  they  were  last  year.  The  cost  of  instruction  per 
pupil  will  be  about  $2.00  less  than  it  was  last  year.  But  the  in¬ 
creased  expenditures  for  janitors’  and  engineers’  wages,  for  coal, 
light  and  power  will  raise  the  cost  per  pupil  about  $11.00.  The 
maintenance  cost  will  be  less  than  it  was.  Cost  per  pupil  for  over¬ 
head  charges  will  be  less.  On  balance  this  will  mean  an  increase  of 
not  far  from  $7.00  per  pupil.  The  cost  per  pupil  for  interest  on 


53 


the  investment  and  for  depreciation  is  $53.55,  making  the  total 
annual  cost  in  the  Peoria  High  School  for  the  present  school  year 
about  $145.46. 

In  the  case  of  the  Manual  Training  High  School  the  cost  per 
pupil  is  likewise  higher  this  year  than  it  was  last  year.  Estimating 
the  average  daily  attendance  to  be  495  the  cost  per  pupil  for  instruc¬ 
tion  will  be  at  least  $19.00  more  than  it  was  last  year,  making  the 
total  cost  for  the  year,  including  cost  for  interest  on  investment  and 
depreciation,  about  $143.74.  The  cost  for  four  years  of  schooling 
in  the  high  schools  would  be  increased  correspondingly,  making 
the  total  cost  for  thirteen  years’  attendance  more  than  $1,100.00. 

Is  there  any  reason  for  believing  that  it  is  impossible  to  arouse 
in  the  rising  generation  more  of  a  sense  of  personal  obligation  to 
the  community  which  has  thus  helped  to  equip  them  for  the  strug¬ 
gle  of  life?  It  would  seem  that  a  correct  reading  of  the  signs  of 
the  times  would  show  that  we  are  in  the  beginning  of  a  new  era, 
an  era  in  which  every  individual  is  becoming  more  fully  conscious 
of  what  he  owes  to  the  whole  community,  an  era  in  which  we  are 
learning  more  fully  than  ever  before,  that  we  need  to  remain 
cognizant  not  merely  of  our  rights,  but  as  well,'  of  our  duties. 
Everywhere,  in  connection  with  public  education  and  public  life 
generally,  we  need  to  revise  our  attitude.  And  as  regards  the 
school,  created  and  maintained  by  the  community  to  preserve  intact 
the  best  in  the  community  life,  isn’t  there  an  especial  need  that 
everyone  in  any  way  connected  therewith  :  teacher,  pupil,  parent, 
dealer,  contractor,  take  pride  in  the  thought  of  serving  the  com¬ 
munity  ? 

The  peculiar  work  of  the  Board  of  School  Inspectors,  seems 
on  last  analysis  to  be  the  promotion  of  such  a  spirit  in  the  city 
school  system.  For  this  its  members  render  their  gratuitous  ser¬ 
vice,  a  service  which  is  never  an  easy  one,  and  at  the  present 
moment  a  peculiarly  onerous  one,  but  in  the  rendering  of  which  it 
is  hoped  they  may  receive  the  hearty  co-operation  of  every  citizen 
of  the  community. 


54 


cry  lord - 

PAMPHLET  BINDER 

Syracuse,  N.  Y.  E 
Stockfoa,  Colif.  5 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


379.773SCH76A 


C001 


